Oral Answers to Questions

Ann Winterton: The Minister is quite correct. Although housing, better employment opportunities and transport links are vital for rural areas, does he not agree that education is, too? Will he join me in regretting it that one of my local schools, serving a wide rural area, the Church Lawton primary school, is being considered for closure in the dying days of Cheshire county council? Will he join me in asking the county council to look again at the matter?

Voluntary Sector

Gordon Brown: Every economy is facing problems, and I do not want to make predictions about the future. We are in very difficult times. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will see, and the whole House will understand, the strength of the action that we have taken today. We have produced additional liquidity in the system of up to £200 billion. We have said that we are prepared to buy shares in our banks and recapitalise our banks to the tune of £50 billion. We have also done something that other countries will, I believe, follow very soon by providing medium-term financing of up to £250 billion, guaranteed by the Treasury. By taking co-ordinated action as a whole and leading the world in doing so, I believe that we can get our banking system on to a sound footing, and that is the key to the future. To have that combined with the macroeconomic action—a cut in interest rates—is an important message that is being sent round the world: that we will do everything in our power to ensure that our economy moves forward.

Gordon Brown: I was pleased to visit the constituency of my right hon. Friend when I opened a school only a few weeks ago, and we will do everything in our power to maintain our public services, to increase jobs in our economy and to protect the savings and deposits of the citizens of this country. I want to reassure people that everything that can be done will be done to ensure a flow of finance for mortgages and small businesses, despite the toughness of these times. I also say to him that the conditions we will lay down for support to banks in this country include executive performance and the way in which it is remunerated, and we will build on the Financial Services Authority's work to ensure that excessive risk-taking is not rewarded but punished.

Gordon Brown: Again, I am grateful for the chance to explain how we will move forward the proposal that the Chancellor announced this morning. On the remuneration packages available to executives, it will be a condition of the capitalisation of banks that they accept new conditions attached to executive remuneration. We are in discussion, on a case-by-case basis, with the banks that want to take up the scheme about the level of executive remuneration, especially the bonus system that has caused so much difficulty.
	Our aim is to support and reward work, enterprise and responsible risk-taking, but not irresponsible and excessive risk-taking, which has caused so much damage. The Financial Services Authority— [Interruption.] I was asked a question, so I think I should have the chance to answer. The Financial Services Authority will soon publish a consultative document about the danger to company balance sheets if, by excessive risk-taking, some of their executives put those balance sheets and companies at risk. That will form part of its estimate of what capital those companies need.
	It is not only a question of the individual banks with which we are dealing having to accept new conditions—there are strings attached and conditions must be met—but throughout the system, the FSA will propose a new way of dealing with executive remuneration, especially bonuses, which will allow it to regulate according to the capital requirements of a company that takes excessive risk.

Gordon Brown: Of course under the new legislation, for which I believe there is now all-party support, the Bank of England will have a statutory role in the supervision of the system. However, I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we came in in 1997, there were seven or eight separate regulators all involved in the system. We co-ordinated that within the Financial Services Authority and we led the world in that way.
	As for bonuses, the FSA will be responsible for issuing rules about capital adequacy to firms. It will take into account whether firms are taking excessive risk by rewarding people on the basis of short-term gains, not long-term success. So when the right hon. Gentleman asks what will be done, the answer is that on a case-by-case basis where we capitalise the banks, we will lay down conditions. As for other companies and the rest of the system, the FSA will now be in a position to regulate the capital requirements of firms according to the risk-taking that is involved.
	I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about what he thinks about the irresponsibility of people in the City and some of the adjectives that have been used, but I have to remind him of what he said on the "Andrew Marr Show":
	"What you won't hear from me this week is sort of easy, cheap lines...beating up...the market system, bashing...financiers."

Liz Blackman: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on this bold, comprehensive financial package, especially as it has been struck voluntarily with the banks and will therefore not be delayed by legislation. Can he tell the House how quickly he thinks that the major banks will take up the offer on the table?

Stephen Hammond: When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he often used the occasion of the IMF forecast to revise his public borrowing figures. In light of today's revised IMF forecast, will he revise those public borrowing figures today?

Chris McCafferty: In light of today's historic and dynamic intervention, does my right hon. Friend consider that the proposed takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB will still proceed? If so, will he reassure my constituents in the Calder Valley, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), many of whom are employed by HBOS in Halifax, that he will do everything that he can to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies in the next three years?

Gordon Brown: I am tempted to use my experience of studying history to go back quite a long time to explain what has happened.
	I was talking about irresponsibility in the financial markets. Now everyone agrees about irresponsibility in the financial markets, but let me say, because I think it should be clear to the people of this country, that the dividing line here is not between business and being anti-business, or between market and being anti-market. The dividing line that we have is between rewarding hard work, effort and responsibility—rewarding enterprise—and rewarding excessive risk-taking or irresponsible risk-taking.  [Interruption.] The all-party consensus seems to have dissipated a little.
	I personally think that the whole country will agree that that is the right thing. Let us reward work, let us reward effort, let us reward enterprise, let us reward responsible risk-taking; but let us deal with the problem—and sort it out once and for all—of excessive and irresponsible risk-taking.

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the proposals that I announced this morning. I hope the House will understand that it was necessary for me to issue a statement this morning ahead of the opening of the markets, for very obvious reasons. Before I return to that, let me tell the House that the announcement made by the Bank of England half an hour ago of its intention to cut interest rates by half a per cent. to 4&frac12; per cent. will help our objectives of maintaining stability and rebuilding the banking system.
	As I said in my statement to the House on Monday, the disruption in the global financial markets has intensified over the last few days and weeks. I also said that the Government were ready, with the resources and the commitment, to do whatever was necessary—in terms of liquidity and capital—to maintain stability in the banking system. That is why today I put forward measures designed to restore confidence in the banking system and to put banks on a stronger footing.
	There are three strands to what I have outlined today: first, to provide sufficient liquidity now; secondly, to make available new capital to UK banks and building societies to strengthen their resources and to restructure their finances, while maintaining their support for the real economy; and thirdly to ensure that the banking system has the funds necessary to maintain lending in the medium term. My proposals today, as well as supporting stability in the financial system, will protect depositors, safeguard the interests of taxpayers and play an important part in the international response to this global crisis. That, in turn, should help people and businesses, as well as support the economy in these extraordinary times.
	Let me set out for the House further details and the purpose of our measures. First, the Government and the Governor of the Bank of England will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the banking system has sufficient funds, or liquidity, to function properly. That crucial measure is needed to allow money to flow through the banking system.
	To that end, I have agreed further immediate liquidity measures with the Governor. Until markets stabilise, the Bank of England will extend and widen its injections of funds into the system to build on the £40 billion that it put in yesterday. The Bank of England will continue to lend those funds to banks, in both sterling and dollars, by taking a wider range of security in exchange, and today I have increased the amount available to the Bank of England to lend through the special liquidity scheme to a total of at least £200 billion.
	By injecting that short-term funding into the system, the banks will be better able to conduct their daily business with their customers. Importantly, that form of funding, which allows banks to swap assets for Government securities, keeps the risk of losses with the banks and not the taxpayer. The Bank of England will next week bring forward its plans for a permanent regime underpinning banking system liquidity, including a discount window facility.
	The second step is to help the banking system to become stronger, so that it can better deal with the current turmoil in global financial markets. Banks will do that by raising the level of capital that they hold.
	A healthy banking system is the cornerstone of the economy. Strong banks underpin a strong economy, but many banks, all over the world, do not have sufficient capital and banks need adequate capital, so that they can keep on lending to people. That is why today the Government have established a bank recapitalisation fund to allow UK banks to increase their capital position. The eight major UK banks have today announced that, in aggregate, they plan to increase their capital by £25 billion. Banks can raise that capital in the open market, in the usual way, or they can raise it through the newly created bank recapitalisation fund. Other eligible banks and building societies can also take part.
	Through the fund, the Government stand ready to buy preference shares in the participating banks. Preference shares rank above the stock of ordinary shareholders. The Government will receive a fixed regular payment for holding those shares and will get better protection against any future losses. In addition to that, the fund will be ready to provide at least another £25 billion of capital to strengthen the balance sheets of any interested bank. The taxpayer, therefore, will be fully rewarded for that investment.
	Additionally, the Government are also prepared to consider standing behind the issuance of new shares by any bank taking part in the recapitalisation fund. The fund will cover a wide range of financial institutions, from UK-based multinational banks to high street branches and regional building societies. Through those measures, UK banks will be strengthened to above the standards required by international conventions. It will put the banks on a stronger footing, making them better able to deal with future shocks and more willing to lend to people, families and businesses.
	That brings me to the third element of the Government's proposal today. The root cause of today's problems is that, because banks all over the world are worried about each other's positions, medium-term lending between them has frozen up. Many banks have simply lost confidence in each other. If banks do not lend to each other, they will also not lend to people and businesses up and down the country.
	To free up bank lending and reduce dependence on overnight lending, I want to remove one of the key barriers by offering a temporary underwriting for any eligible new debt issued by banks. That means that participating banks can start having confidence in each other again, because they will know that the Government are standing firmly behind them when they want to issue new debt. That guarantee aims to unblock the system, so that banks can go about their business of lending to people and businesses, and because it will be priced on commercial terms, taxpayers will be rewarded for the risk that they take on. The guarantee is expected to cover an amount of around £250 billion but we will keep this total under review. Over time the cost of lending between banks should fall, reducing the need for such a guarantee.
	The freeze in global markets is a problem for all countries. Yesterday, at the meeting of European Finance Ministers, we agreed to work together to rebuild confidence in the banking system. I believe that the measures that I am announcing today are an important part of that. I shall be having further discussions with Finance Ministers and when I go to Washington tomorrow, I will be discussing with my colleagues there the extension of these proposals, as well as continuing our work towards strengthening the system of international supervision. The Prime Minister, as he has just said in Prime Minister's questions, has agreed with other major countries on the need for a meeting of Heads of Government.
	I believe that these measures are essential for the economy, but let me deal with the implications for the Government and, of course, for the taxpayer of those new proposals as well as others announced on previous occasions. When we nationalised Northern Rock, the Government had lent it around £30 billion. It has now paid back more than half of that ahead of schedule. When we nationalised parts of Bradford & Bingley, it was clear that we would run off its assets in an orderly way and get back as much as possible of the money that we provided to cover depositors. The injections of liquidity through the special liquidity scheme to which I have just referred simply allow banks to swap securities with the Bank of England, so the risk remains with the banks and not the taxpayer; in other words, we get our money back.
	For all the operations of the recapitalisation fund announced today, we will be charging the banks on full commercial terms. We will hold a capital stake as part of the investment and that will include a payment of dividends on shares and the appropriate charges for the use of the guarantee ensuring that the taxpayer is appropriately rewarded. The implications for the public finances as a result of today's announcements will be exceptional and mostly temporary and, in fact, will protect taxpayers by ensuring stability in the economy now.
	In return for this offer to invest in banks I will need to be satisfied that the banks have the appropriate policies in place; policies to prevent the irresponsible behaviour that we have seen in some parts of the global banking system. The public are entitled to share in the upside of these proposals, so in return for our support, we will be looking at executive pay, dividend payments and lending practices, particularly to home owners and small and medium sized enterprises.
	I want to say something about the three Icelandic banks; Landsbanki, its UK subsidiary, Heritable, and Kaupthing, which was put into liquidation within the last hour. The Financial Services Authority decided yesterday that Heritable could not continue to meet its obligations and today it has taken exactly the same decision for Kaupthing. I have therefore used the special powers that I have under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act to transfer most of their retail deposits to ING, the Dutch bank, which is working to secure business as usual for its customers to protect its savers' money. The rest of those Icelandic businesses have been put into administration.
	On icesave, we are expecting the Icelandic authorities to put Landsbanki, which owns icesave, into insolvency. Despite the fact this is a branch of an Icelandic bank, I have in the exceptional circumstances that we see today guaranteed that no depositor loses any money as a result of the closure of icesave and I am taking steps today to freeze the assets of Landsbanki in the UK until the position in Iceland becomes clearer.
	Those actions demonstrate my strong commitment to protect UK retail depositors in these exceptional times. The purpose of these proposals is to get lending started again and to get the economy moving forward. It is one of a number of measures that we are taking to deal with specific cases as well as providing general support. We are ready to do more whenever it is necessary. Failure to act would have meant far greater risks to the economy and to the public finances in the future. I have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to maintain stability, to protect savers and to rebuild the confidence to help businesses, people and the wider economy. I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: I am grateful to the Chancellor not just for his statement, but for discussing it with me this morning.
	This has, of course, been another day of turmoil on the financial markets, and people watching us remain desperately anxious about their savings, their mortgages and their future jobs. That is why we continue to offer our constructive support for the package announced today, including the important steps on interbank lending that the Prime Minister mentioned at Prime Minister's questions. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, the real test of the success of this rescue will be if credit starts flowing again through the veins of the economy. We want to see banks not just lending to banks again, but also lending again to the small businesses that need a loan extension and to the families who are trying to get a remortgage.
	So may I ask the Chancellor the following specific questions? He said in his statement that he will require a full commitment to lending to small businesses and home owners. How exactly will that commitment be enforced? Does he have a commitment that the banks, for example, will not be charging small businesses 15 per cent. interest rates of the kind that we described on Monday? Does he have a commitment that the banks will pass on to customers the kind of rate cuts that the Bank of England has just announced today—and, perhaps, will also announce in the future? May I press him again on a question that my right hon. Friend asked of the Prime Minister? Does the Chancellor have a commitment that those banks that are most in trouble and most in need of taxpayer support will not be paying bonuses this year to their senior executives? The Prime Minister did not answer that question clearly and it would be good to have an answer from the Chancellor; there should not be rewards for failure—no bonuses for those who took their banks to the edge of bankruptcy.  [Interruption.] Labour Members can ask the new Minister appointed in the House of Lords all about bonuses when they leave the Chamber. The Chancellor says that this is all the Financial Services Authority's responsibility, but it is the Chancellor who is ultimately responsible for tax money, and how is he going to enforce these commitments, because while the Government can give their support now and strike a deal now, they will, of course, find it very difficult to withdraw that support once it is offered without risking further crisis, so what are the real sanctions that the FSA or the Treasury have to help small businesses?
	Secondly, may I ask the Chancellor about the concerns of people with savings in Icelandic banks? They will welcome what the Chancellor says, but may I ask for some clarification for all our constituents? He says there will be no depositor losses as a result of the closure of icesave. Does that include—I assume it does—deposits of more than £50,000? Does it also include wholesale deposits, because, as I am sure he knows, many local authorities have large deposits with these Icelandic banks? Are their deposits protected as well? Also, where will this money ultimately come from? The FSA compensation scheme will be under considerable strain after the Bradford & Bingley deal. Is the Chancellor expecting, in the end, the industry to make a contribution? May I also ask whether the Chancellor has other plans for other UK deposits in other foreign banks that may be in difficulty at this current time?
	Thirdly, will the Chancellor be using this moment to start driving through the longer term changes we need to our system of regulation? There will be plenty of time to assess the mistakes that have been made and how we got into this situation, but one thing is clear: we must ensure that in future it is the banks and their shareholders who set aside capital, not the taxpayer. The Prime Minister talked in Prime Minister's questions about the banking Bill and the Bank of England's role in liquidity supervision, but is he going to consider giving the Bank of England new powers to manage overall debt levels in the economy, with perhaps an open letter system with the FSA?
	Finally, may I also ask the Chancellor about the international front? We welcome the news of co-ordinated cuts in interest rates across the western world. He is, of course, travelling tomorrow to the meetings in the United States. What prospect is there of genuine co-ordination across western Governments on other areas of policy, such as support for financial systems, so that we can perhaps have some common approach to the guarantees that are being offered to different parts of those financial systems? On the broader economy, as we have just heard in questions the International Monetary Fund is now predicting negative growth for the UK, the biggest downgrade it has made of any major economy that it monitors.
	In the Budget, the Chancellor predicted growth this year of 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. next year, and as the Prime Minister very helpfully just confirmed, when he was Chancellor he used the IMF meeting to set out what I think he called a broad pattern of growth, but what I seem to remember being very specific figures—he would often get out his downgrade before the pre-Budget report at the IMF meeting. Will the Chancellor be using this opportunity to predict growth, so that the country is fully prepared and aware of the very difficult economic times that lie ahead?
	This is an extraordinary moment, when the British taxpayer is forced to step in and bail out the banking system, but let us be clear: we do this not to rescue the banks or the bankers, but to rescue the economy and the millions of families who depend on it. That will be the true test of whether today's package succeeds, and we all hope that it does.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am glad that I had the opportunity to speak to him and to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, earlier this morning and to explain what we were doing and why. I also very much welcome the spirit of cross-party co-operation, and I hope that it lasts.
	I shall now deal with the various points that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) raised, beginning with Iceland. This afternoon, we will publish further details about how the Financial Services Compensation Scheme intends to proceed. I have to tell the House that getting information out of Iceland is proving to be quite difficult. That country obviously has severe difficulties, and that is why I decided that I had to intervene. It would have been quite wrong to say to people covered by the Icelandic scheme, "Sorry, you've got to go to Reykjavik and try to get your money there." That is especially true when it is not clear to me whether the Icelandic scheme can be funded. So we have taken steps to freeze the assets of the bank involved, and I hope that we will be able to recover some of those assets in order to offset the money that we will have to provide to help people in the meantime.
	The hon. Member for Tatton also asked about regulation. It is important that we learn from what has happened. First and foremost, we need to appreciate that, although it might have been sufficient in days past to allow a country to regulate within its own borders, it is now essential for a country that sees problems occurring within its own borders to discuss them with and report them to other countries. We saw problems in America, when that country was getting into the mire of the sub-prime market, and in the old days, that would have been a problem just for America, but it is now a problem for every country. So I think that the whole culture and approach to regulation needs to change, and there are obviously developments that we need here—although I am bound to say that no one will convince me that we should back to the old days when we had nine or 10 regulators in this country who were all tripping over each other. It would also be absolute nonsense to go back to the days of self-regulation. However, I believe that the Bank of England should now have a statutory role in ensuring financial stability—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"]—as I announced in January of this year. I am glad that there is support for that in every part of the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the proposals that I announced today. What I have done today is announce the principles that will underpin our approach. As I said, and as the Prime Minister said at Question Time, we will reach individual agreements with the banks concerned. If they choose to use the facilities that we are offering, we shall sit down and discuss the detailed proposals with them.
	I am grateful for the Conservative party's support for our approach to the excesses that we have seen. It is far more interventionist than I had always understood the Conservative position to be, but we must make sure that we go down what is a fine line. We must ensure that the public interest is maintained and yet not get ourselves into a position where we somehow think that we can sit in a boardroom and take all the decisions for everyone. At some point the hon. Member for Tatton came perilously close to suggesting that, but it is important that we make sure that we deal with some of the damaging effects of the bonus system that we have seen over the past few years.
	The final point made by the hon. Gentleman had to do with international co-operation. I believe that such co-operation is more urgent now than it has ever been, and that is why I believe that we should remain fully engaged in the EU, as the obvious place to start is right on our doorstep. I also think that we need to remain engaged and take a lead in making sure that we maintain stability by improving supervision and regulation internationally. That is very much the theme that I shall be pursuing in Washington this weekend.

Alistair Darling: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am very glad that he has welcomed the action taken by the Bank of England to cut interest rates to 4&frac12; per cent. I hope that he will recall that, when he pressed me two days ago to intervene and take away the Bank of England's independence, I said that I thought that the remit was adequate to allow it to do what was right—and so it seems to have turned out. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I am sure that the whole House and the whole country will welcome the reduction in interest rates, and I hope that banks will ensure that people benefit from it as soon as they can.
	I agree that one of the reasons why we put in place today's intervention is that we need to be mindful of the fact that if we did nothing, the effects would spread into the wider economy. This measure, and others that we have taken and will take in the future, will try to deal with that. The hon. Gentleman referred to our announcement about housing. He is quite right: I want to see that through.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about agreements following my announcement today. The Government will obviously have to reach an agreement with individual banks, and those discussions need to take place. He asked what teeth there were. May I give him one example? As he knows, banks in the UK are regulated by the FSA. If it imposes a regulatory requirement—for example, following a code on remuneration, rewards or bonuses—the regulated banks have no alternative but to comply. That is the whole point of a regulatory system.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Icelandic banks, and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who speaks for the Conservatives, also raised the question of councils. What we can do is make sure that we look after the retail depositors—the ordinary men and women who put in their money, and might not have fully appreciated that Icesave is a branch of a foreign bank and not incorporated in the UK. I understand the position of local authorities, but they are in a slightly different situation, in that they are a more informed investor. However, as I said earlier, the situation is evolving; we are trying to sort the matter out with the Icelandic Government. I have had conversations with Icelandic Ministers—both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister. In addition, one of my ministerial colleagues hopes to speak to the Icelandic Finance Minister again today.
	On the point about the Justice Secretary, I have spoken to my right hon. Friend about the points relating to repossessions—not just today—and I am sure he will pursue the matter.

Joan Ryan: I welcome the package of proposals and the decisive action announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor this morning. Hard-working families in my constituency want assurances that the package will afford them greater protection will not just be a bail-out for the banks. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that in the coming weeks and months, he will continue to communicate to those hard-working families that this Government's priorities are their savings, their pensions, their jobs, their homes and their security?

Andrew Tyrie: I am glad that the Government have finally acted to recapitalise the banks. Of course, the litmus test of whether it works will be whether the interbank market unfreezes. The Chancellor has been closeted with the key banks for the past 24 hours. What estimate have they given him of the likelihood of an early unfreezing of that market—particularly before Christmas, which is one of the deadlines in his press release on the implementation of the scheme?

Eric Pickles: The Chancellor rightly wants to protect hard-working taxpayers, but some of those taxpayers also pay council tax. Is he wholly content, given what he has just said—that local authorities are informed investors, and their investments in Iceland will not be covered by the guarantee? Is he aware that we are not talking about trivial sums, but about hundreds of millions of pounds, and about some investments involving payroll? That will create a cash-flow problem. Is he wholly content that the burden should fall on council tax payers?

Mark Harper: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require a Minister to certify on a Government Bill or a statutory instrument whether or not the Bill or statutory instrument is a result of a decision of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
	Our democratic system is based on the principles of transparency and accountability. I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member of this House would disagree that members of the public should know the origin of the laws that govern them. When my constituents, especially schoolchildren, come to Parliament, I often explain that, as with other Members of Parliament, one of my roles is to scrutinise the legislation brought before this House. Yet there is little clarity—indeed, much confusion—over the extent of the European Union's influence on the legislation brought before this House and the other place.
	I bring in this Bill neither to praise nor criticise the EU per se, but to uphold the principles of openness and transparency on which our democracy is built. For more than a decade now, members of this House and the other place have been asking the Government what proportion of our law has been initiated by the European Union. No definitive number has ever been agreed. In 2006, the then trade Minister, Lord Triesman, estimated that
	"around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels."
	Other European countries have reached similar conclusions. According to the World Bank Group's review of the Dutch administrative burden in November 2006, EU regulations account for approximately 40 per cent. of all regulations implemented in the Netherlands.
	In the 2003-04 Session of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked each Department what proportion of its legislation was introduced in response to directives from Brussels. Each Department revealed how differently it was affected, with estimated answers ranging from 0 per cent. to 57 per cent. Clearly, the proportion will vary each year according to the Department. However, Members should not need to ask retrospectively for estimates each year. We are legally bound to introduce the laws made by the European Union; the fact that legislation originated in Europe should therefore be made clear to MPs and members of the public when it is brought before this House.
	Hon. Members will be familiar with the statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 that Ministers must declare on the face of every Bill. In the same way, my Bill would ensure that Ministers declared whether a Bill or statutory instrument was the consequence of EU decision or EU legislation.
	The Bill would be of particular benefit in respect of statutory instruments. So far in this Session of Parliament, more than 2,000 statutory instruments have been laid before the House, yet it is far from clear how many of those are implementing European legislation and how many are home-grown. My Bill will force Ministers to make the information clear, and thereby open up the legislative process. It will enable legislators and the public to understand the extent to which the European Union influences the laws of this country.
	This is an important issue to raise, and not only because transparency is essential to the democratic process; there is considerable debate among the public about Britain's place in the European Union. The EU has been widely blamed—rightly or wrongly—for the introduction of home information packs and the Government's inability to expel criminals from the UK. The list goes on. Indeed, the EU has even been accused of trying to straighten bendy bananas; I shall not pursue that example as I know how sensitive bananas have become at the Foreign Office.
	One of the main problems with the public perception of the EU is that its decisions can appear hidden from public scrutiny and its processes can appear unknown. Turnout at European elections is low, suggesting that the public do not feel involved in the European political process and do not understand how its decisions may affect their lives. If we asked the average person—indeed, the average Member of Parliament—what the four European institutions were, it would not be surprising if we drew a blank. Despite that, there is both great enthusiasm and great scepticism about the role of the European Union.
	The information that the Bill would make available is particularly relevant given that the British Chambers of Commerce, an organisation committed to Britain's membership of the EU, has estimated that legislation sourced in Brussels has placed a £47 billion burden on British businesses. The question of the EU's influence on UK legislation is therefore not simply an academic exercise, but a pressing issue for businesses across the country—particularly at a time when businesses are increasingly hard pressed due to the worsening economic outlook.
	Indeed, a recent report published by the BCC, "The British Regulatory System",highlighted serious shortcomings with the Government's impact assessment of EU legislation. That has left substantial costs to fall on UK business. Commenting on the findings of the report, Sally Low, BCC's director of policy and external affairs, said:
	"If we are to see a better regulatory environment for business then the Government must be engaging earlier in the EU's policy making process. Our report highlights the fact that the Government is only focused on the UK end of EU legislation. There must be a clear linkage between events in Brussels and the UK's own consultation and Impact Assessment process.
	Without timely engagement and substantive consultation the prospects of the UK influencing EU policy to the benefit of British business is severely limited".
	If the full extent of the EU's influence on our legislation were clearer, there would be an even greater imperative to engage fully with the EU's policy making process. This engagement, as the BCC report highlights, has been far too little, far too late from this Government. Indeed, if it were clearer how much legislation already originated from the EU, that might make Ministers a little more cautious before they signed up to still more.
	During the debate on the Lisbon treaty we had some opportunity to debate what role the EU should have. The Bill is not intended to reopen that debate; nor am I suggesting that it will completely enlighten the public about the role of the EU and its impact on the UK. However, it would allow us to have the essential information as to the origin of any new laws being proposed in order that we may subsequently have a more informed debate about Britain's place within the EU. Although I am sure that Members will be aware of my views on this matter, I have come neither to praise the EU nor to bury it. In presenting this Bill, I want to ensure that the EU's role can be better understood and scrutinised.
	When the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who I am pleased to see in his place, was Minister for Europe, he said that to calculate the number of legislative measures enacted each year in the UK directly implementing EU legislation
	"would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile".—[ Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 755W.]
	Such a statement leads me to question the extent to which the Government and this House are willing to put a price tag on openness and transparency. I understand the complexities of the process of adopting EU legislation, but such complexities should not make the process inaccessible and opaque.
	My Bill enjoys the support of Members drawn from six parties in this House. My proposal is not a revolutionary one—it is common sense. I commend my Bill to the House.

Denis MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on making a very moderate speech. I am grateful to him for remembering the modest contribution that I once made many years ago in serving Her Majesty on matters European. However, as so often with the Better Off Out group of the Conservative party, his speech and his Bill hide behind them concepts and problems that need to be unpicked.
	I would have no objection if on the front of every Bill that comes before this House there were some symbol or statement of its origin. The vast majority of legislation that has emanated from the EU has done so since the Single European Act was passed in 1986. That has had a huge impact on the legislation of 26 other countries. A great number of different groups in those countries think that the Single European Act, with its rather steam-rollering approach to enforcing free trade, is the child of the noble Baroness Thatcher, so perhaps on the front of every Bill across Europe that is connected with that Act we should have a nice picture of Margaret Thatcher to remind Europeans of where some of the best European legislation comes from.
	The hon. Gentleman made heavy weather of trying to establish what percentage of our laws come from the European Union. If we think honestly about what takes up our time in the House, what worries our constituents and what fills the front pages of our newspapers, we find that very little is connected with the EU. Having already voted to outlaw wife-beating, I hope that later today we will outlaw child-beating. I do not know whether those on the Treasury Bench are of that mind.
	Other issues ahead of us in the next few weeks include stem cell research, time limits on abortion, who might decide on the next police chief of London, identity cards, the length of detention for those suspected of serious terrorist crimes, university admissions and fees, our taxation policy, and what we heard about a moment ago from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the Bill that will follow. Those are all made-in-Britain laws. That is true in France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Ireland, Finland and all members of the European Union. Of course, that which is connected to the Single European Act has to do with Europe.
	In a debate earlier this year, I said that according to the Library—if I have time, I will read out some of its detailed statistics—only 10 per cent. of the laws that impact on us in the United Kingdom, adopted by this House principally through statutory instruments, emanate from the European Union. Then, to my horror, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, leapt to his feet and quoted another right hon. Gentleman who had said that 50 per cent. or more of regulations came from the European Union. That right hon. Gentleman was the Prime Minister. Naturally, as a devoted admirer and fan of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister over decades, I was very concerned thus to be put in my place. I wrote to the Prime Minister to see whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks had accurately quoted him. I have a letter here, very kindly addressed, "Dear Denis", and dated 30 April this year, in which he says
	"that—on average—around 9 per cent. of all statutory instruments transpose EC legislation...I believe this is the correct figure."
	In a debate in this House on 3 June, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that about 80 per cent. of all legislation emanated from the European Union, quoting a German Government source. The BBC and others have been trying to find this German Government source—is it Goethe, Schiller, or Mrs. Merkel?—and find that they cannot. It really is not good enough to come to the House and quote anonymous Germans, whoever they may be, in defence of the preposterous position that 80 per cent. of all our laws come from the European Union.
	Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman was in very good company. Only two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of switching on the "Today" programme before 7 o'clock to find Mr. John Humphrys interviewing my favourite Euro-comic turn, Mr. Nigel Farage of the UK Independence party. Nigel—I hope that he does not mind my being familiar, but we get on quite well—said that 75 per cent. of all laws in the UK were now decided by the European Union: 5 per cent. less than the right hon. Gentleman's figure. I do not know what had happened in the intervening two or three months. As Mr. Humphrys is usually so swift and vigorous in picking up anything that is a palpable untruth, I wrote to the BBC to ask whether that figure was going to be corrected or whether Mr. Humphrys could be politely asked, next time he hears this nonsense, from whatever source, to slap it down.
	Before the European Parliament elections it is important that we establish certain accepted truths about the European Union. It is time to nail here in this House, and publicly, the lie that the EU is responsible for 80 per cent. of our laws, according to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, or for 75 per cent., according to Mr. Nigel Farage. I have here a letter from Mr. Malcolm Balen, a senior editorial adviser at BBC News. It is very friendly, but whenever someone from the BBC writes to one of us on these issues they go into a special room, cover themselves in grease, and then go for a swim in oil, so what he says is, to put it mildly, quite hard to grasp. He turns to Mr. Mark Mardell, the BBC's excellent Europe editor, saying that Mr. Mardell
	"has previously researched Mr Farage's claim, made on  Today, that this figure is 75 per cent., and found that it is supposedly based on a German government statement, although no-one has actually discovered it.
	Mark points out, however, that this whole area is a contentious one and that the last time he tried to establish an accurate figure he found the subject, in his words, too 'jelly-like' to nail down."
	We are not dealing with jelly, but with laws made in this country that affect all our citizens. On that point, I completely agree with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, but we have to avoid a circular argument. That Conservative party front organisation against Europe, Open Europe, issued a document recently stating that the smoking ban and the provisions we have for cigarette packs originated in Europe. In fact, Britain was one of the earliest countries—going back to when there was a Conservative Government—to bring in the "smoking damages your health" warnings. They made the case for it in Europe, Europe made it a European-wide law, which I support, and it then came back into our law. We are seeing law made in Britain transposed through Europe back into our own legislation. We end up in a Kafkaesque world, where ideas start in Britain, and during a period of many years they go to Europe and are agreed there. They then come back into our law and are blamed on the European Union.
	This Bill does not contribute one whit to reform or educating the public. It is part of the continuing drive by the Conservative party, as we saw expressed at its conference last week, to cut all links with the ruling centre-right parties in Europe, and—if we were to experience the misfortune of their forming a Government—to take us steadily to the exit door of the European Union. I oppose this Bill.
	 Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in  b ills and nomination of  s elect  c ommittees at commencement of public business):—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a key consideration that I am always aware of and which came up many times in Committee. When we talk about family, we are talking about not just the immediate family, but the extended family. As we know, grandparents are a lifeline in many cases, especially where there is a problem in relation to the child and the birth parents' ability to look after that child. I am sure that the Minister will take that point on board as well.
	I welcome, too, the reference to strengthening the visitor role and, in particular, the immediacy of ensuring that a relevant professional visits and makes an assessment. Too often, the immediate concern is to find the placement and then the pressure is off, but finding the placement is only the first stage. We have to ensure that all the necessary support packages are in place, so I welcome the Minister's comments in that regard.
	However, all this also hinges on the availability of the appropriate professionals, especially properly qualified dedicated social workers. We know about the problems related to the shortage of and turnover in social workers, particularly in the area of child protection and those with expertise in children with disabilities. That came up many times in Committee and it is quite a specialist area.
	Promoting the duty to notify will also be part of these considerations. Ensuring that the responsible authority has liaised properly with the host authority is a problem for children within the care system—both those who are disabled and who are not disabled—when they are placed out of area, as too many children still are. I hope that fewer will be as a result of other measures in the Bill. We welcome the Government new clause and the amendments that go with it.
	Our own lead proposal is new clause 24 and I need to notify you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we would like the opportunity to vote on it. Given how the system works, that vote will come later rather than at the end of this debate, as our new clause is not the lead amendment.
	The new clause introduces a relatively new subject in terms of amendments to the Bill, but that subject has been of concern to me and my Conservative colleagues for some time. It involves the role of children in care in custody—a group that is very vulnerable and too large. Some 10,000 children pass through the secure estate for juveniles every year. At any one time, as we know all too well, approximately 3,000 children under the age of 18 are in custody in this country. It is not a good thing that we have locked up so many children and kept them off the streets; it is a sign of failure that they should have to be in custody in the first place. Many of us will agree that we need to think and act smarter as to how we divert those children from the custodial estate.
	According to the Youth Justice Board, 71 per cent.—almost three quarters—of children in custody have been in the care of or involved with social services prior to entering custody. That is an alarming figure, again showing the failure of the state as the corporate parent, as three quarters of its charges in the custody system will have been in the care of children's services previously. That is an indictment of the system.
	The "Care Matters" Green Paper noted that the majority of children in care—those under section 20 of the 1989 Act—lose their looked-after status on entering custody. The only children and young people with care status in custody are: those under a full care order of section 31; those classified as in need under section 17 of the 1989 Act by the local authority in which the establishment is based during their time in custody; those children on remand in secure training centres or secure children's homes; those 16 or 17-year-olds who have spent enough time in care to be "relevant children", which is the technical term; and finally, 18 to 21-year-olds who are former "relevant children".
	The Green Paper did not go so far as to suggest that children entering custody should not lose their looked-after status. It did, however, suggest that children entering custody should be needs-assessed, and that individuals should continue to be supported as if they were a child in care. But any reference to children in custody was watered down in the "Care Matters: Time for Change" White Paper, to a requirement for social workers to visit previously looked-after children while in custody. The continuity of that arrangement is something of a postcode lottery.
	Over the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you noticed and read from cover to cover the report produced by the Centre for Social Justice entitled, "Couldn't Care Less". That excellent report was the result of a lot of research and interviews with people involved in the care system and the children themselves. The report states that the methods by which a child arrived in care should not influence the level of oversight and care that local authorities exercise over children in care who go into custody. Surely all children within the care system should be equal in the eyes of their corporate parent.
	Let me quote some passages from the report, which are relevant to the need for specific action to be taken to give extra support and status to children in care in the custody system. It states:
	"Children in care are being criminalised because Local Authorities are failing in their responsibilities to prevent them drifting into criminality. Mental health problems are left to deteriorate and neglectful Local Authorities provide more opportunities for children to be in contact with the police than to be in education or employment.
	Once involved with the criminal justice system, it is difficult to disentangle children in care. The majority are placed in custodial settings: existing facilities do little to address the reasons why children commit crimes, nor do they teach them the skills necessary to live successful lives outside of prison. Local Authorities provide children in custody with poor support, both when they are in prison and when they leave it. As a result, many offenders with a background in care reoffend costing the taxpayer millions, and go on to experience a life burdened by unhappiness and dependency"—
	effectively getting into a cycle of despair.

Tim Loughton: As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I completely agree with him. We need to do far more preventively to keep children out of the custody system. That means better, closer working with consistent social workers, who are able to have a closer relationship. For those at the edge of custody, however, it also means ensuring that the key support person gives assurances to a court that steps could be taken to keep that child out of custody. That would require all the support packages on which he and I agree and to which his new clause alludes.
	—
	The trouble is that 3,000 children are already in the custody system, of whom a majority are from the care system. When they get out, we need to make sure that they are supported appropriately and can go into a setting that will ensure that they do not return to custody, and that they get back into the mainstream as quickly and smoothly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would fully agree with those intentions.
	I do not want to read out the whole report, although some of its contents are startling. Another statistic that came out, however, is that only 2 per cent. of the current care population in prison
	"were placed there due to socially unacceptable behaviour of their own, the majority are in care as a result of abuse, neglect or family breakdown."
	They are not career criminals, but deeply damaged children from deeply damaged backgrounds, who find themselves caught up in a vortex of unacceptable behaviour, the only response to which is an unsmart, unsophisticated one of banging them up. That is not good enough, and it is also highly counter-productive given the recidivism rates.
	For a child in the justice system—whether they are from the care system or not—at a young offenders institution, if placed on a sentence of less than 12 months, the recidivism rate is 92 per cent. That was the last statistic I heard. It is therefore virtually guaranteed that a child going into the system will make a career of offending. That cannot be right or helpful to the child, or to the community that must temporarily host that child before they get back on to the conveyor belt into crime.
	We must consider the extra stresses on young people in prison. The Mental Health Foundation, for example, has estimated that rates of mental health problems among children and young people in the youth justice system are at least three times higher than those in the general population. Children in the care system are much more likely to have mental health problems, and are exponentially more likely to have mental health problems when they go into the justice system.
	A vicious circle of deprivation exists. There is a triple whammy: perverse financial incentives to provide inappropriate kinds of custody; poor care, education and training in custody to prevent reoffending; and inadequate planning for release and support after leaving custody.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful. I am not in the business of preventing a letter from being written, but pursuant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), may I put it to my hon. Friend that it is often a question of spending now in order to save later? Does he not agree that the fact that there are 11,000 people in our young offenders' institutions, of whom typically more than 60 per cent. suffer from speech, language and communication problems that prevent them from gaining access to education or training courses, is a damning indictment? Do not those people perhaps need an independent advocate or A. N. Other to trigger the provision of a relatively inexpensive service which will do those people and the country great good, and prevent the vastly increased costs that would otherwise be incurred at a later stage?

Tim Loughton: I thank my hon. Friend, not for saving the Minister from having to write the letter but for the point that he has made so well. He and I, along with other Members, discussed precisely that problem during a Westminster Hall debate this morning. We all agreed that, however the process is triggered—and there are different ways of triggering it—it is essential to ensure that early intervention support services are available to those with speech and language difficulties, autism and associated special educational needs. A disproportionate number of children in the care system suffer from communication difficulties of that kind which might have been avoided—or at least alleviated—through early intervention.
	I want to make a few more points about new clause 19 before turning to the other new clauses and amendments in the group. It is the largest group on the list, so—as I am sure you will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall not be as verbose as this later.
	If we are truly to help our most vulnerable young people, the children who are already looked after on entering custody should not cease to be looked after. They should be entitled to all the benefits conferred by section 20 of the Children Act 1989, bar perhaps the provision of accommodation by the local authority. That would ensure that all looked-after children entering custody do not become even more disadvantaged. In 2005-06, about a quarter of the number of boys and half the number of girls in custody were held over 50 miles away from their homes, according to the Youth Justice Board. Again, continuity of care in such circumstances is all-important. The new clause would ensure that local authorities were in a position to provide suitable accommodation and support for looked-after children leaving custody.
	The new clause is also important in safeguarding the longer-term provision of support for many extremely vulnerable children who at present should qualify for leaving-care assistance under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. A child is eligible under the Act if he or she is aged 16 or 17 and has been looked after by a local authority for 13 weeks or more, provided that the period began after the child had reached the age of 14 and ended after he or she had reached the age of 16. The 13-week period does not need to be continuous, but a series of pre-planned short-term placements of under four weeks at the end of which the child returns to the care of a parent, or a person who has responsibility for him or her, will not count. Periods during which a child is remanded in the care of the local authority or in remand in a secure training centre will count, but remand to a young offenders' institution will not.
	There are anomalies in the system, and it will often be difficult to determine whether or not a child is eligible. At present, a typical scenario that needs to be considered would involve a young person being placed under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 owing to his or her chaotic circumstances, possibly as a result of court proceedings and bail requirements, but then being remanded to a young offenders' institution or sentenced to custody before the 13-weeks were up. The child would thereby lose any entitlement to leaving-care rights. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) may wish to comment on that, as it is an issue of which he has a great deal of experience.
	Ensuring that those accommodated under section 20 do not lose their looked-after status on entering custody will entitle such vulnerable children to the support that they need to make the transition from childhood to adulthood and independent living, hopefully at liberty as well. The implications for successful resettlement when they leave custody are clear. However, as things stand there is a perverse incentive working in the system. I do not say that it is being taken advantage of or that it is happening a lot, but there is a perverse incentive for a children's services department to foist a child in care on to the youth justice system so that the department no longer has responsibility, let alone financial liability, for the child. That is an enormous waste of money, and such deckchair-shifting is certainly not in the interests of the child—which, as always, must be our primary consideration.
	The points made by the hon. Member for Stafford in new clause 26—along with, I am sure, the points that he will make in his speech—echo points made in Committee, and I sympathise very much with them. The hon. Gentleman's aim is to increase support for "family and friends" carers. We have long championed—I tabled many amendments in Committee, which were supported by a number of members of all parties—the need to ensure that kinship care becomes a much more extensively used resource. It is still the case that only 4 per cent. of social worker-initiated placements are with kinship carers, which cannot make sense.
	Despite the requirement that kinship carers should be at the top of the hierarchy of placements, they are still not getting enough of a look-in. Many of us will have been visited in our surgeries by, typically, grandparents who have offered to take on the care of a grandchild whose parents are deemed to be incapable of doing so, but are having to battle to gain that responsibility—and if they do gain it, many must then battle to obtain proper support and remuneration.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend has raised a good point, which she also raised—and we discussed—in Committee. It is a complicated problem, but I think that ultimately it is simply easier to place a child with a non-connected foster carer who may be on the local authority's books, and whom a social worker may know to be a safe pair of hands. The extra work involved, and the extra risk that may be involved, in taking on a new and unknown quantity in the form of a kinship carer can be enough to tip the balance.
	I am not trying to attach blame to social workers; the blame lies with the system. As we know from last year's report by our own Commission on Social Workers, they are still under severe pressure. The lack of continuity among them makes it very difficult for them to form the close attachment to a case that should be required for, particularly, very vulnerable children. In Denmark some 40 per cent. of placements are made with kinship carers, which shows that it can be done, but for some reason our system militates against it. All the evidence shows that that lack of investment is a false economy, and that children placed with kinship carers fare as well as, if not better than, children raised by unrelated foster carers.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend knows that we have raised the subject of family group conferencing before. It gained a lot of support from Conservative Members, and I think that other Members also felt that its use needed to be expanded much more. We tabled an amendment to reinforce the desirability of pursuing family group conferencing, but, alas, the harshness of Mr. Speaker's selection process has not allowed it to be debated today. I am sure that he is right in his decision, it is just a shame that we have not been able to debate that amendment. However, we have had an opportunity, through my hon. Friend, to say how much we support family group conferencing and getting everyone around the table: extended family members, close friends and all the agencies and professionals involved. That must be the best way to determine what is the best and most appropriate action for the child, because it means that all the opportunities are explored at the same time and kinship carers who want to put themselves forward can do so at the beginning and all the pros and cons of that option can be investigated, rather than adopting the all too common "We'll get back to you" approach. I seem to be lingering too long on a new clause which is not mine, but the hon. Member for Stafford will gather that there is support for what he is trying to achieve.
	New clause 28 was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) with whom I concur about the paucity of information about accommodation arrangements for 19 and 20-year-olds. Once again, we are frustrated by Government replies that say that those figures are not collected centrally, because we need that intelligence if we are to discover the extent of the problem, especially given the fact that it does not exist just to the age of 16 or 18.
	I am aware that there is an amendment on the selection list tabled by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), on which we will reserve judgment until she has spoken about it. I will not try to pre-empt her, as I have the hon. Member for Stafford, but we had advance warning of what he is trying to achieve.
	Amendment No. 13 is not rocket science and what it proposes is not new. In fact, we went back to the matter on numerous occasions in Committee. Basically, it is about trying to put a cap on placements. I know that that is fraught with problems, but there is a strongly held view that the biggest issue undermining the chances of looked-after children getting a decent second chance is instability in their placements. If they are constantly being pushed from one foster placement to another, for the convenience often of the system rather than for their convenience, because it is easier to take a child in care from one foster parent to another some miles away than to try to provide the support package that that child needs to enable them to stay with the first foster parent—the child may have complex needs—that must be detrimental to that child's ability to get back on the straight and narrow. It must also be detrimental to efforts to secure some stability in the child's education, particularly when a new placement means moving from one school to another.
	The amendment repeats the principles that we supported in Committee by trying to cap the number of placements that a child can have, other than in exceptional circumstances, particularly for those children who are reaching the last year of their compulsory schooling, when such moves can obviously have a detrimental effect on their capacity to take their exams and to pass them.
	We know that the educational outcome figures for children in care remain appalling. In school year 11, 64 per cent. of looked-after children obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ, compared with 99 per cent. of all school children, and 13 per cent. obtained at least five GCSEs or equivalent at grades A to C, compared with 62 per cent. of all children. That gap has been widening. Although the achievements of children in care have been improving, that has not happened at nearly as fast a rate as among children in general. That is unacceptable.
	The amendment would fix a cap on the number of placements, and if that cap were breached, it would be judged an exception to the rule and the local authority would have to give a full explanation of why that had been allowed to happen and what had been done to prevent a repetition. Fostering is the backbone of the care system. Seventy-one per cent. of children in care are now in foster placements, but a National Foundation for Educational Research report found that 29 per cent. of children in care had had three or more placements during their secondary school years, and 25 per cent. of them had had six or more placements. Some survey work for a report by the Centre for Social Justice revealed that almost one in 10 of care leavers interviewed had experienced more than six placements before they were 16 and that some had been in as many as 30. It also found that 41 per cent. of foster carers thought that stability would make the biggest difference to children in care. As David Holmes of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering has said,
	"The one thing that would make a difference to children is having a strong relationship based on strong attachment, intimacy and trust with at least one trusted individual which is going to be there for that child."
	Research has shown the importance of stability and continuity of care and its long-term effects on mental health. In a study carried out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, adults who had been raised in stable foster homes and received specialist support from a dedicated fostering agency were found to be more socially well integrated.

Siobhain McDonagh: I defer to everybody here—they are much more knowledgeable on this topic than me—but my concern regards potential foster children with physical needs and disabilities and the difficulties that foster carers have in claiming disabled facilities grants. Has the hon. Gentleman taken that into account?

Tim Loughton: That is part of the general principle behind the amendment. I am interested to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on it and to hear how that might be conveyed to those responsible in the unlikely event of her not wanting to accept the amendment.
	For local authorities coming up with strategies for looked-after children, it is not just a question of "Have we got the right number of foster carers and the appropriate services?" It is also a question of trying to get some flexibility in creating the environments that enable more foster carers to come forward, or that allow more current foster carers to increase their responsibility, such that they could accommodate more children at home if they made some adaptations. That might involve various grants being available, as the hon. Lady has just said. It would certainly involve some leeway on planning policies in some cases. I would go well beyond my brief if I tried to suggest that there should be a change in planning policy guidance of any description.
	Housing and planning departments must be included within the planning for foster care placements in particular. I can think of one London borough where this has happened informally and, as a result, there is a much higher number of foster carers and the authority is able to make many more foster placements. More leeway could be allowed in terms of adaptations for children with disabilities or in the ability to accommodate more children, within the realms of safety; one is not trying to take risks. I wanted to place on record in this probing amendment that housing and planning departments have a role in this as well, although one would not normally expect them to.
	I am aware that I have taken up rather a lot of the House's time but this is the largest grouping of amendments. There are some important amendments among them but I certainly would wish to pursue new clause 24 in a vote later today.

Joan Humble: I would like to add my words of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Minister.
	As someone who did not serve on the Public Bill Committee, I would like to explore the meaning of the new clause a little more. It is clearly welcome because it puts the focus on the needs of disabled children who are placed away from home, and on the importance of families continuing to have links with them. Reference was made to a visitor arriving within seven days. I would like to explore further the role of visitors and how they will communicate with the child and the family. Having met people who act as independent visitors in other circumstances, I found that most of them were qualified social workers. I wonder whether in this instance the individual will be a qualified social worker or will have some other form of expertise. I would like the person to have the ability to communicate with young people, who often find communication difficult. In the case of a young person with a severe disability, or other problems with communicating, it is vital that the visitor has the techniques and methods necessary to communicate so that they can listen to what the young person has to say and be a voice for that young person.
	The thread of independent advocacy will run though my brief contribution. It is important that we remember that the role of the independent advocate is not the same as that of a professional social worker, or a professional in some other realm. I am therefore interested in the way in which the role of the visitor fits into the scenario.
	Will the visitor take on some of the responsibilities that I would expect of an independent advocate: acting as the voice of the child by communicating with the child; finding out whether young people are happy where they are and whether they want to raise any issues; bringing those matters to the attention of the appropriate bodies; and reporting back to the family? Or will the visitor look at the placement more from the point of view of a professional social worker, and examine whether a care plan—in some cases, a health care plan—is being properly followed? The young person and the family will need a clear idea of who the individual is and how that person fits in with other people with whom they may have been involved before the child is placed away from home.
	There are too many cases of severely disabled children being placed a substantial distance from home and finding themselves unable to communicate properly with the people who care for them. They are miles away from the family, who often cannot afford to travel to visit, so the children are outside the protection of people who should be there to undertake it.
	I hope that the new clause can properly reassure me and parents, and, above all, act in the best interests of the child. As framed, it seems to do that, but I would like more detail about the role of the visitor.
	I have similar comments for my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) about amendment No. 18. She made important points about the role of the independent reviewing officer, who has a clear statutory function, which can be essential in the scenario that she outlined, whereby young people of 16 and over need support in accommodation and to consider their education and their future. However, those young people could also benefit from an independent advocate, who is not part of the statutory system. When the Minister responds to that amendment, I hope that she will also consider the wider network that young people may need at such a difficult time in their lives.
	Although accommodation may be available for those young people, how much of it is suitable? In Blackpool, we have a lot of private rented accommodation, but not all of it is suitable for vulnerable young people without the support of professionals, who can offer advice and guidance and be at the end of the phone. Again, we could consider independent advocacy alongside the role of the professional to ensure that the voice of the child is properly heard.
	I want to comment briefly on new clause 26, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) tabled. He began his contribution by referring to independent advocacy. I do not doubt that he is right that statutory access to independent advocacy is more than simply a complaints procedure because the Minister's predecessor and his officials told me the same thing. However, that does not apply in practice. The extent of independent advocacy varies around the country, as is the extent to which local authorities use it.
	I have had several meetings with appropriate officers in Blackpool council to discuss that very issue. Earlier this year, they tightened their rules for contracting for independent advocacy services, reducing the number of young people who had an entitlement to independent advocacy. Advocacy services of course have to be paid for, and it is important that we as legislators clarify the circumstances in which local authorities contract for such services, in order to ensure that as many young people as possible get the service that they require.

Joan Ryan: I join others in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to her new responsibilities. It is clear from the way in which she moved new clause 19 that she will not be lacking in commitment on these issues.
	I spoke on Second Reading and want to refer back to that debate and to talk about new clause 28. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) described it as a probing amendment. I listened to her remarks in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and thought that they were well made.
	I am sure that all hon. Members will remember a lobby by many foster carers on the day of that Second Reading debate. A number of foster carers from my constituency came to speak to me. Like me, they welcomed the Bill. I still hold that warm welcome for it and the measures within it, but it is right that we probe some of the issues.
	I have been impressed by the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House who considered the Bill in Committee. It sounds as though it was thoroughgoing consideration, with a great deal of knowledge being brought to bear, and I am sorry that I was unable to be part of it.
	On Second Reading, I raised issues about the "staying put" pilots and young people being able to remain in their foster placement beyond the age of 17. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was very encouraging about those concerns, finding a more flexible way forward, including the Government's commitment to enable young people to remain in their placement and not have to move on at 17. All of us, I think, have had briefings on the fact that, apparently, the average age for young people to leave home these days is 24, although there are people with 30-year-olds still at home. However, that is clearly not the case for young people in care or in foster care.
	We have been provided with statistics in various helpful briefings, and they are quite shocking. For example,
	"statistical returns suggest that no more than 280 young people are still living with their foster carers when they are nineteen...It is estimated that for 3,000 young people leaving care at 16 or 17, foster care is their final placement."
	That cannot be a good way to help those young people to find the best way forward and fulfil their potential. I am pleased that the Government are committed to dealing with that, but I return to the issue that is raised in new clause 28.
	It is important that we have good, solid statistical information that guides us in policy. I am sure that we will return to these issues in years to come if, as I understand they are, the Government are seeking in their guidance and through the pilots to extend young people's ability to remain in their foster placement until the age of 21. As I said, the average age for leaving home is 24, so inevitably these issues will have to be looked at again as time moves on and as circumstances change.
	If we are talking about young people staying in education and training until they are 18 and wanting to increase the number of young people in higher education, we want to do that as much for those in foster placements and in care as we do for all others. Statistical information is important in guiding policy, but—the hon. Gentleman made this point to the hon. Lady—we need to ensure that local authorities cannot hide behind the fact that there is not such information. This is a useful probing new clause, and I am sure that the Minister has some insights that she will share with us and that will reassure us on those matters.
	I want to make another point that returns and is related to the issue of placement with family and friends, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. I notice that a briefing refers to the 2005 Farmer and Moyers report to the Department for Education and Skills entitled "Children Placed with Family and Friends: Placement Patterns and Outcomes". It tells us:
	"Evidence also suggests"—
	that is a worrying phrase as it suggests to me that we do not have enough evidence—
	"that family and friends placements are considered by local authorities in only 57 per cent. of placements, despite the existing duty set out in Section 23(6) of the Children Act 1989".
	It is worrying that a duty already exists in law but is not being followed. What can we achieve through guidance that will ensure that that duty is met? If local authorities are already flouting the law, how will we ensure that consideration is given to placing children with family and friends? That relates to the previous point, because without clear duty guidance and monitoring, some local authorities—not all by any means—will find their way around the measures, which are intended to benefit the children and young people involved, and therefore the wider community as well.
	I welcome many of the Government's measures, and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for further clarification on such points when she responds.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We have heard a lot about this large and varied group of amendments. To respond to all the points will be quite a challenge, but I will do my best. As I said earlier, the amendments relate to three different groups of children, including those children placed in accommodation arranged under the health and education legislation. At the outset, I explained the package of measures that the Government are taking, including through amendments, to improve services for that vulnerable group. As I said, that package was developed with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, which has welcomed the Government's approach.
	When we were discussing those amendments, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) had a question about the notification of placements made by health and education bodies and how we were going to ensure that that happened properly. New guidance relating to that provision will set out the expectations on the authorities when children are placed outside their own responsible authority. The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that local authorities are aware of their new duties and that they happen on the ground. I look forward to working on the implementation plan because legislation is just the guidance and the start of improving practice on the ground.
	Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked questions about visits by social workers. The hon. Lady asked whether the visits would be conducted by a qualified social worker with experience of working with disabled children. We want to ensure that those visitors have the right skills and experience to provide the support that children need. That is why the Bill lists a requirement that local authorities satisfy themselves that the individual who makes the visit has the necessary skills and experience. It is our policy intention that it should be qualified social workers who carry out those visits, but we accept that there may be circumstances where that is not possible, so we do not want to introduce regulations with which we know that local authorities will be unable to comply. That is an issue for guidance and I commit to consult interested parties before we finalise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) also wanted the role of the visitor to be fleshed out, and I hope I can satisfy her that we will be able to do that in the guidance.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about the availability of professionals and the shortage of social workers and asked what we were going to do about that. We have commissioned the Children's Workforce Development Council to address a number of measures that we hope will enable us to recruit social workers faster and to hold on to those we have.
	On looked-after children and those living with family, friends and carers, the proposed amendments try to tackle issues of practice. I understand the concerns but I want to demonstrate that we plan to address them at a more practical level. I should also like to remind hon. Members that much of what is asked for in the amendments is already in the Bill. Amendment No. 13 relates to placement stability, which is essential if looked-after children are to thrive and achieve. It is particularly important that we minimise disruptions through the two years of key stage 4, especially if they also lead to changes of school. Most children who are looked after for more than a year stay in the same placement. However, we want to increase the proportion of children in long-term stable care placements because we know that these lead to the best outcomes. We also want to reduce further the minority of looked-after children who have more than three placements each year. Both of the measures are part of the national indicator set for local authorities.
	Clause 9 sets out the key considerations in determining the most appropriate placement for the child and includes the specific requirement that the local authority must ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, in all circumstances of the case that the placement does not disrupt the child's educational training at any stage in the child's educational career. The provision goes much further than the proposed amendment as it is not limited to disruption in year 11. We are also taking powers to make regulations to require a local authority to take prescribed steps before making any decision concerning a child's placement if he or she is at key stage 4, which includes years 10 and 11. We will use the power to require a full statutory review of the child's care plan whenever any unplanned change is proposed that would have the effect of disrupting their education, including consultation with the designated teacher at those schools.
	We will also make it clear in the new statutory guidance to independent reviewing officers that part of their new role will be to provide a real challenge to social workers' placement decisions, including changes of placement, to ensure that they are made in the child's best interests and that the child has been properly involved in the decision.
	However, we must ensure that the target of no more than three placements in one year does not create perverse incentives. The absence of placement breakdown does not automatically mean that the child is happy and in the best placement. It may be important for some children to be moved into a short-term treatment programme as a means to enabling them to find permanence in the future. For other children, a placement move may be about a trial return home to parents while on a care order. Finally, placement changes are already required to be recorded within the child's care plan. I do not accept that the requirement for a written explanation of placement moves as proposed in the amendment will add anything to the current requirements.
	Amendment No. 14 is on a similar theme, as it seeks to increase the availability of foster care placements by ensuring that children's services are working with their colleagues in housing services to develop a strategy to maximise the availability. Many hon. Members spoke about that link. A potential benefit of an authority having sufficient foster placements would be a reduced risk of needing to disrupt educational training. Local authorities need to think strategically about the need for placements in their area and how best to address any shortages. That is why we have included clause 10, which places a new general duty on local authorities to take steps to secure, so far as reasonably practical, sufficient accommodation within their area that meets the needs of the children they look after.
	Let me take this opportunity to put on record that the duty to secure sufficient accommodation applies to children's homes, foster care placements and other arrangements, such as supported lodgings and semi-independent accommodation, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDongah). In order to discharge this new duty, local authorities will have to, among other things, conduct assessments of local need, both existing and potential, and establish the extent to which those needs can be met through existing placements. They must then take action to address shortages of any particular type of accommodation in their area. My hon. Friend also raised an issue about disabled facilities grants, and the child health strategy, which we will publish shortly, will recognise the importance of joint working and ensuring disabled facilities grants are seen as part of the overall resources for children, and not just in a housing department silo.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is something we will have to consider, and that was a problem with the amendment because not all authorities that provide children's services also have housing services under their jurisdiction. We must take into account that there are unitary authorities who do both, but in many cases housing is provided by district authorities and children's services by the larger metropolitans.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested it might be a probing amendment, so I hope I might have said enough for him to feel able to withdraw it.
	I now want to respond to new clause 26, which proposes a new support service for kinship carers and goes much further than can be justified. It would give a blank cheque to kinship carers, requiring local authorities to provide financial support to arrangements where the local authority may have had no prior involvement with the child or his family, and even if the local authority considered the placement to be unsuitable or had concerns about the carer's capacity to care for the child. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 already places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs. If it is consistent with their duty to safeguard and promote the child's welfare, the local authority must provide services to promote the upbringing of the child by his family. Family and friends carers must be considered for services under section 17 where the child is a child in need—in other words, their health or development is at risk—in exactly the same way that parents should be considered for services.
	Clause 9 replaces section 23 of the 1989 Act with proposed new section 22C. It requires the local authority to consider placements in the following order of priority: first, the parent; secondly, the preference must be given to placement with a relative, friend or other person connected with the child who is a local authority foster parent. I can assure the House that our care planning regulations will continue the current emergency provision allowing temporary approvals pending full assessment of the relative's suitability to foster. We expect more relative carers to receive financial and other support from local authorities under section 17, where that is needed, but we must be very careful not to undermine our policies on early intervention by offering greater support to those caring for a relative's child than to parents who are struggling to care for their own child. At all costs, we must not introduce perverse incentives for parents to renege on their responsibilities to children, or for families to collude in alternative care arrangements because there is a perceived financial benefit. Family and friends carers are entitled to a range of other financial supports and benefits such as child benefit and child tax credit, both of which are unaffected by any payments made under section 17, on broadly the same terms as parents.
	As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole noted, we are already seeking through clause 24 of this Bill to amend section 17(6) of the 1989 Act, which restricts the making of financial payments to "exceptional circumstances". The amendment will give local authorities a wider discretion and enable them to provide financial support on a longer-term basis, where they are satisfied that doing so would safeguard and promote the child's welfare.
	Equally, however, we are concerned to ensure that local authorities do not have perverse incentives to rely on family and friends to avoid responsibility where a child's needs are such that they should be met through the provision of care and accommodation. As hon. Members know, it is our policy that children should not cease to be looked after simply because they have been placed in the extended family. Clause9 of the Bill addresses that issue.
	However, we all agree that more must be done to increase the involvement of family and friends in caring for children who cannot live with their parents, and that one of the keys to achieving this goal is to improve the services and support for family and friends carers. That is why we have committed to developing a new framework for family and friends carers in order to address the current lack of local policy frameworks on this most important issue, the unacceptable variations in levels of support and services between authorities, and the need for transparency and equity in relation to services and support for these carers.
	The framework will be issued as part of the revised Children Act 1989 statutory guidance, under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. New clause 26 is intended to ensure that local authorities consider the needs of family and friends carers as well as the needs of the children whom they care for, which of course we support. However, we do not consider that the proposed amendment is a necessary or appropriate way to drive forward improvements, for the reasons I have given.
	We now come to the three amendments—amendment No. 18, and new clauses 24 and 28—that relate to care leavers. In different ways, they are all intended to ensure that these young people get the support that they need. I shall deal first with amendment No. 18, which has to do with relevant children. In future, there will be a presumption that children will continue to be looked after up to the age of 18 and that there will rarely be good reasons for a local authority to cease looking after a child before he or she turns 18. Therefore, it is Government policy that relevant children will become a residual category of children. We shall set out explicitly in the new single set of care planning regulations that a local authority cannot move a looked-after child to independent living arrangements without first conducting a statutory review of the care plan and that, where such a move take places, it does not automatically result in the child leaving care. That is an entirely separate decision that must also be reviewed.
	The role of the independent reviewing officer in each case will be to challenge local decisions to ensure that the social worker has made a proper assessment and that any decision promotes the welfare of the child. The IRO, for example, will want to be satisfied that the accommodation is genuinely suitable, and we will use statutory guidance to set out our expectation that the social worker and child should visit the proposed accommodation before the decision is made.
	That will stop the current poor practice in local authorities that means that a child is placed in independent living arrangements without review and/or is automatically deemed to have left care at the same time. That poor practice is a misunderstanding of the current legislative framework. Clause 9 of the Bill, regulation-making powers and the revised Children Act statutory guidance, give us a review mechanism to correct that. So, in future, there may still be a small number of cases where a review of the young person's case endorses the social worker's assessment that that young person's welfare would be promoted by the young person leaving care because he or she is ready and wants to take on the challenge of living more independently. In such cases, current legislation requires a pathway plan to be developed, following an assessment of need, and a personal adviser to be appointed to oversee the implementation of the plan before the child ceases to be looked after. The pathway plan must be reviewed at least once every six months, and more often if the personal adviser or child requests it.
	While we cannot accept amendment No. 18, as the independent reviewing officer has no statutory functions in relation to relevant children, we will set out in statutory guidance that the child should be offered an independent person to oversee the review. That could be their former IRO, or it could be an opportunity for the young person to conduct the review themselves with the support of an advocate—perhaps the independent advocate mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. We will include in regulations a requirement that relevant children should be regularly visited where they are living by their personal adviser to enable identification—

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I tried.
	The final amendment I shall speak to is new clause 28—I am sure Members will be relieved to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Many Members expressed concern about the age at which young people leave foster care. Our staying put pilots are designed to identify all the practical and financial barriers that inhibit care leavers from remaining with former foster carers, so that as far as possible care leavers have the opportunity to remain with their foster family. If, as we hope and expect, the pilots demonstrate improved outcomes for care leavers, we hope to take action in the next comprehensive spending review period, so that any care leavers who chooses may have a reasonable expectation that they can remain in a family placement.
	We keep comprehensive data on all looked-after children up to age 18. We also have an established data set that is focused on the accommodation of care leavers at age 19 who had been looked-after at age 16. Those data sets are established statistical collections; local authorities already have systems in place to collect the information. We do not currently collect any information on the accommodation of care leavers at age 20. If the amendment were accepted, it would be necessary for every local authority to establish a completely new process to collect that information, which would represent a new, uncosted burden on every local authority at a time when my Department is reviewing the number of data collections.
	I understand why there is a wish to collect data on the number of young people who remain with former foster carers, and it would be possible to analyse existing data sets to establish an indication of the number of 19-year-olds benefiting from that accommodation option. I can also confirm that we will give serious consideration to amending the categories in our existing statistics collection from 2010 to highlight placement with former foster carers as a separate accommodation option for care leavers at age 19, as it would undoubtedly be useful for each local authority to have information on the accommodation provided to all their care leavers, including information on the number remaining with former foster carers. I hope that hon. Members accept the difficulties that would be caused by introducing an uncosted new burden on local authorities by requiring them to contribute to an additional national data collection.
	I have covered a great deal of ground. I hope that the hon. Members who tabled the amendments feel that I have responded to their concerns and that my arguments have persuaded them not to press them to a vote.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Tim Loughton: The last group took only just over three hours; let us see whether we can do a bit better on this group. We have also been through three Deputy Speakers. I am sure that you will be more resilient, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	New clause 7 brings a severe sense of déjà vu. I am sure that all hon. Members who have been involved in the Committee on the Bill, and in previous Committees dealing with children's affairs, will agree. We debated in Committee the measure to promote a scheme for the registration of private foster carers. We tabled amendments that would have struck out what was then clause 15, which extended the time limit in section 47 of the Children Act 2004, which would have brought in a private fostering registration scheme four years after that Act came into force—in November this year, I believe. Through the Bill, the Government are extending by a further three years the sunset clause that accompanied the enabling provision. As a result, we may not see a scheme for the registration of private foster carers introduced until 2011—seven years after the coming into force of the 2004 Act.
	New clause 7 would amend sections 45 to 47 of the Children Act 2004 to allow a scheme for the registration of private foster carers to be brought in forthwith, so that we do not have to wait yet more years for the Government to enable it to be introduced. Many Members from Opposition parties, including me—and indeed some Government Members—are genuinely confused by the Government's continued dithering over bringing in a scheme that has been called for by many organisations and professionals involved with child protection issues.
	I should like to echo comments that I made in Committee, and the countless speeches that various hon. Members, some present today, have made over the past few years on the need for a private fostering registration scheme. I refer the House to the 1997 Utting report, "People Like Us", which recommended a private fostering registration scheme. I refer hon. Members to the work of the UK Joint Working Party on Foster Care in 1999, which revealed the high potential for abuse and neglect and urged regulation of private fostering in a public awareness campaign. I refer hon. Members to the Laming report that was produced in the wake of the Victoria Climbié tragedy; it recommended a review of the private fostering system. I refer hon. Members to my own modest ten-minute Bill, introduced on 19 March 2003, which contained three provisions, one of which would have instituted a private fostering registration scheme.
	There were also cross-party attempts to bring in the scheme straight away under what was then the Children Bill in 2004. The proposal was supported—and voted for, no less—by the then Labour Member for Lancaster and Wyre, Hilton Dawson, who was well versed in the issues. It is therefore inexplicable to many of us why the Government have avoided supporting a measure on which there is broad consensus; people involved in children's issues, adoption and fostering have for some time said that it is highly necessary. We are confounded as to why the Government have still not gone through with it.
	In the years during which we have called for such a scheme, there has been extensive regulation of child minding—that registration scheme has enjoyed a degree of success—and all sorts of standards for the inspection of care homes and fostering agencies have been introduced. There are numerous new adoption rights and requirements, and hundreds of thousands of people who deal with young people have become subject to Criminal Records Bureau checks, including me. We have even considered legislation to clamp down on puppy farming, but still we have not introduced a registration scheme for private fostering.
	We are talking about potentially vulnerable children, and people who are unknown to local social services departments. There can be no guarantee of equality of care, and no guarantee that people are accessing appropriate training, support and benefits. There is no control over the number of placements that a child will experience. That all has ramifications for the safety, welfare and well-being of children in private fostering arrangements. We have no accurate measure of the extent of such arrangements, although some years ago it was estimated that there are in excess of 10,000 private foster care arrangements in this country. They disproportionately involve children coming from west Africa, particularly Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast, which is where Victoria Climbié came from, although she came via France.
	I am sure that a large majority of private foster carers do a good job and pose no threat to their charges, but we simply do not know. We have no idea of the extent of the problem, because the Department of Heath stopped collecting data back in 1991, as the figures were so inaccurate. Since 1991, regulations have brought in local registers of foster carers, but there is no real legal penalty for not registering, and many people are ignorant of the requirements.
	As I say, the Government introduced legislation that would enable a private fostering registration scheme to be set up. It was to come into force after a certain period unless a good reason why it should not be introduced was found; hence the sunset clause. The Government intend to extend the sunset clause by means of the Bill, but what has changed since the Children Act 2004 that requires the terms of the sunset clause to be extended yet further? What have the Government found out since then that has convinced them to extend the sunset clause, which prevents the coming into force of a private fostering registration scheme, and what do we need to know to clear that hurdle and trigger the coming into force of the scheme?
	In one of his weaker moments, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), formerly the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families, came up with some very unconvincing reasons why the Government needed to do yet more research. I do not think that his heart was in it when he opposed the measure. There are still no specifics about what research would be required before the Government could make a definitive decision to go ahead with such a scheme.
	We believe that the sunset clause was a sop; the fact that the Government now seek to extend it without good reason goes to prove that. It is a sop to mention the issue without having any real inclination to do anything about it. That is what I charged the Minister who had responsibility for children in 2004 with, and nothing has happened to negate that charge. In 2004, in saying that she wanted to beef up the notification scheme, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who was then the Minister with responsibility for children, admitted:
	"I think that the notification scheme is not working well."
	We all agreed with that. But she went on to say, in support of the sunset clause:
	"The clause is in the Bill because we want to strengthen the scheme and give it one last chance to work."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 285, 288.]
	That was the "last chance"—in 2004. Now, apparently, there is to be another last chance. The Government must make their case properly and justify why the sunset is proving to be very long indeed. Will we ever see the dawn of a private fostering registration scheme, which so many of us have wanted for so many years? I am at a loss to see how the notification scheme can have been deemed a success.
	At the end of March last year, the last year for which we have figures, roughly 1,250 children were reported as having been cared for and accommodated in private fostering arrangements in England, and 1,010 such arrangements ended during the previous year. That is well short of the 10,000 or so private fostering arrangements that are estimated to exist, and we still do not know who is involved in the arrangements.
	Another reason for beefing up the provision in 2004 was to publicise the existence of notification schemes and the legal requirement to register with them. Back in 2005,  The Voice carried out a survey that particularly focused on black private fostering arrangements in London, in respect of which there have been problems, of which the Victoria Climbié case was just one example. That survey found that 35 per cent. of the respondents—only a third—knew about private fostering. Some 21 per cent. of the respondents were from Africa, and although 31 per cent. of those said that they knew about private fostering, only half knew what it actually meant. Some 35 per cent. of respondents said that they knew about private fostering, but when they were probed further it was found that only 15 per cent. knew what it was about. There was a pretty low recognition level, particularly among that key target client group.
	Part of the raison d'être behind the changes made by the Minister in charge of the Children Bill in 2004 was to promote better awareness. Local authorities were charged with making potential or existing private fosterers in their areas aware of the requirements to register under the scheme. However, in January this year—four years on—the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, or BAAF, carried out a further survey of Londoners and came up with an even worse result, which showed that few professionals working with children understand what private fostering is. In a YouGov survey that used an even bigger sample than the original one, adults living in London were asked what they thought a child being privately fostered meant. They were offered a series of possible answers. Only 18 per cent. picked the correct definition.
	Furthermore, only 16 per cent. knew that when making private fostering arrangements, the parent and carer must notify the local authority of the area where the child will live, and that failure to do so is an offence. Two hundred professionals—professionals, not just parents—who come into regular contact with children were surveyed, including teachers, teaching assistants, doctors and nurses. What is really worrying is that only 18 per cent. of those professionals knew the correct definition of private fostering, despite the fact that such professionals obviously play a vital role in identifying privately fostered children.

Tim Loughton: I do not have them to hand, although I have the report, which I shall be happy to pass on to my hon. Friend. But the figures speak for themselves. The fact is that professionals gave that response, and it is terribly alarming to think about what on earth they thought private fostering was.
	It would appear from that evidence that the publicity information on the existing notification process has been an abysmal failure. How much money was spent on it, and what results do the Government think have been gained? The surveying of key target audiences has shown that if it has had any impact, it has been a negative impact.
	The time has surely come for a proper formal registration scheme for private fostering arrangements. I do not claim that it would be a universal panacea. It would not be easy to police and it would not be foolproof. I certainly do not want to play the nanny state card by having the state interfere with children who legitimately attend boarding schools or language schools or children on holiday exchanges, who have often been cited as a potential problem as regards such legislation. The point is that we need a private fostering registration scheme, which the un-sunsetted new clause would provide. That national register of private foster carers would be available to birth parents who wish to pursue a private fostering arrangement, and it would enable local authorities to ensure that standards of care were suitable and appropriate and that suitable and appropriate help and support was offered. Such a scheme could also deter private foster carers who had fallen foul of local authorities or authorised foster agency inspections but had not committed offences sufficiently serious for them to be put on the Department for Children, Schools and Families watch list.
	The Government have not made the case for why the scheme should not now come into force. In our deliberations on the Children Bill in 2004, the then Minister with responsibility for children said:
	"we will...require the local safeguarding boards to have regard to how well or otherwise private fostering arrangements are being implemented."
	I would like to hear whether the findings of those local safeguarding boards have coloured the Government's thinking in not going ahead with the scheme. The Minister continued:
	"the notification scheme has not worked—there has not been compliance with the regulatory framework...if this final attempt to get the notification scheme to work is not successful, we would have to examine an alternative, despite the many concerns that we have about the alternatives."
	She described the positive disincentive of the scheme as it then stood, and finally said:
	"if we fail in our endeavours to make the notification scheme work, we will not need to return to the House with primary legislation and we will implement the registration scheme, despite our concerns about whether it will work as well as everyone would like it to."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 289-291.]
	Those words were pretty categorical. It was clear four years ago that unless there was overwhelming evidence to show that the notification scheme was working, this section of the Children Act 2004 would come into force. Why, therefore, are the Government seeking to extend the sunset clause yet again? When is a sunset not a sunset? How many more chances will they give it to show that the notification scheme works—or that, as we think, it does not work—before we have the private fostering registration scheme for which a wide cross-section of people have been calling for many years? On that basis, I am keen to commend new clause 7, which is long overdue.
	New clause 23 proposes foster carers charters. We are all acutely aware of the shortage of foster carers, particularly those with specialisms. All the evidence shows great variety and contrasts in the experiences of foster carers and their relationships with local authorities, so we need to have a level playing field. Foster carers often say that they lack support from their local authority when they need it. Children with complex needs may be placed with them, but the necessary accompanying package of support—specialist professionals, speech and language therapy, children and adolescent mental health services, or whatever it may be—is not forthcoming, and they have limited access to specialist services.
	The foster carers charter is all about a fair deal for foster carers. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that local authorities do the right thing by foster carers and their authority, that the means by which local authorities will support kinship carers are set down in writing, that variations in regional practice are made more transparent, that local authorities are made more accountable to foster carers, and that prospective foster carers are given a better sense of what to expect. That proposal was put forward in the Centre for Social Justice report, "Couldn't Care Less", which reveals a wide variation in conditions for foster carers across the country. Too many foster carers are unsure of their status, entitlements and responsibilities.
	We believe that local authorities should devise and publish a simple fostering charter to which they sign up, and which should specify the basic support that all fostering kinship carers should receive. It should provide a kitemark that would allow foster carers to know whether they were receiving the help to which they were entitled, and it would hold local authorities to account.

Barry Gardiner: No vice can be worse than the sustained and deliberate abuse of a child by an adult who has promised to protect and care for them. Therefore, no Member of Parliament who represents the people of Brent could rise in the House to speak about fostering without the heavy memory of the case of Victoria Climbié, who was once resident in Brent and was murdered by her foster parents.
	Clear leadership and guidance was given by Lord Laming in his 2003 report on that murder. The Government have introduced measures to amend the arrangements under the 1989 Act for local authorities to safeguard and protect the welfare of privately fostered children.
	I listened with great care to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who explained that section 45 of the 2004 Act, while allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a registration scheme for all private foster carers, is in jeopardy of going into the sunset, as he put it, and not being implemented. That is what I take to be the import of new clause 7, which he has moved. It is on those issues that I wish to speak and probe.
	Victoria Climbié came to this country as a young girl, as do many children who come to my constituency. In Wembley, we have a clear pattern of immigration of young children, who come to stay with aunties, uncles or members of their extended family. Often they come on a six-month visitor visa to live with relatives. Those young children will often start school over that six-month period, yet without any assessment being made of their legality or status. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families knows only too well from her experience at the Home Office how many of those children end up becoming overstayers and, as such, children of no status within the community. They are extremely vulnerable children who, if they had ever had a passport holding the visa that expired, would have had it taken away by the foster parent—the carer, supposedly.
	I have dealt with many cases involving people who overstayed for many years, but who first came to my surgery as children and who had on many occasions been subjected to abuse. For that reason, I welcome the provision in clause 7 that puts a duty on the Border and Immigration Agency to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. To some extent, that will go a long way to addressing the problems that I have outlined and which the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about.
	I want simply to ask questions. I listened with great care and with some sympathy to those two hon. Members speak of the need for clear lines of accountability and clarity on the issue. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether agreeing to the new clause would mean having to engage in a process of drafting and consultation on regulations that itself might exceed the time limit specified in that new clause. How long is necessary to gather and analyse the evidence and to make a sound decision about the future? Will she outline what proposals the Government have to do that and to take on board the clear concern that there should be clarity for children who find themselves in such a situation?
	I want briefly to discuss new clause 23. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about a fair deal for foster carers. I hope he will acknowledge the considerable progress that the Government have made in establishing precisely such a fair deal. Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken in the House today referred to the enormous debt of gratitude that we as a society owe to people who open their lives to children—often very vulnerable children—and care for them. I wish to add my thanks to all those carers and foster carers in my constituency who perform that incredible service and work.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in the legislation that they have passed and the proposals that they have made the Government have taken extraordinarily seriously the issue of foster carers and the sense of responsibility that we owe to them for the work that they do. The White Paper "Care Matters" emphasised the importance of providing carers with the necessary development, support and training to equip them with the skills that they require to deal with children who often have extremely complex needs.
	"Care Matters" sets out a number of proposals to improve the recruitment and retention of foster carers and the quality and stability of placements. To support carers to develop effective relationships with the children in their care, the Government have committed themselves to funding a national roll-out of Fostering Changes, a positive parenting programme that aims to develop carers' capacity to manage and cope with the often extremely challenging behaviour of children under their care. At least one London local authority has already adopted the Fostering Changes programme.
	More generally, a number of significant improvement for foster carers have already been made. In April last year, the Government introduced a national minimum allowance intended to set a benchmark for minimum payment rates for all foster carers, so that no one should be out of pocket as a result of that caring role. That was accompanied by good practice guidance to help providers to improve the way that they organise their payment systems for foster carers. In May last year, the Government funded the Children's Workforce Development Council to launch the foster care training, support and development standards, giving fostering providers a framework for their carers' training and professional development.
	In all those areas, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will accept that the Government have gone very far and quite fast in achieving the support and clarity for carers that he calls for in new clause 23.

Emily Thornberry: Having been elected for about three and a half years, I have realised how important it is to have a constituency, and how much a constituency educates us. I have spent the past three and a half years trying to get to grips with and understand my constituency, and have learned a huge amount. It has been an important part of my political education—it is a little like taking off the layers of an onion. One of the important things is to apply social policy to the practical experiences of constituents. Speaking to foster carers and those in our constituencies who support and train them enables us to appreciate the difference between real help and initiatives that look good on paper but are, in fact, so much red tape.
	I commend a new initiative called Fostering Changes, which has been promoted by the Government. It began at Southwark and has been developed in Islington in my constituency. It is about giving real support to foster parents, as opposed to being a charter for foster carers simply to put on their wall. Fostering Changes gives a great deal of assistance to foster parents. My constituency is an inner-city one with high levels of deprivation. If there were a top 10 in terms of the number of people who are drug addicts, have mental health problems and are struggling to bring up children on their own, unfortunately we would be in it. My borough is also No. 3 in the country in terms of the highest number of children in care per head.
	However, before Conservative Members get excited and start bouncing up and down talking about a broken society, let me say that we are not a broken society. Many people in my constituency will open up their hearts and homes and give such young people somewhere to live where they can be loved. Such kids are often difficult, angry and mixed up, but 75 per cent. of Islington's children who live in care are in families where they are supported. There has been a training course available to help fosterers deal with allegations, to assist them in giving first aid, to train them on drug and alcohol issues, and to promote children's ID.
	Fostering Changes, however, was developed by the borough of Southwark and the Maudsley, on the Webster-Stratton model. People from the Maudsley have come to Islington to train up our trainers, and they are now able to do the courses. We are about to start the fifth course. We hope that by the end of this year all our carers will have been trained. The course lasts 10 weeks, and one day a week is spent talking about how to deal with the difficult behaviour of the children being looked after.
	That course is primarily intended for those who are looking after children aged between three and 11, but there have been courses for teenagers as well. It is not magic, but it really helps with building a relationship between the furious little bundle who has had such an enormously difficult life and has ended up in someone's home, and the adult who is there to love it and give it security but who is, ultimately, a stranger and not its mum. The purpose of the course is to build that relationship so that carers can deal with the furious bundle, but also manage access to the original family—who may, in fact, represent some of the causes of many of the difficulties involved—and the relationship with the rest of the family.
	I am very grateful to Norma Barnes and Mary Day, who have spent time explaining exactly what the course is about. Essentially, it is about positive reinforcement. During the day of the course, the carer talks about the difficulties that he or she is experiencing with the child, and is set homework for the rest of the week on how to deal with those difficulties: how to ignore bad behaviour and positively reinforce good behaviour, and how to give 30 minutes a day to a child. The carer should simply give the child attention—not direct the child and not ask questions, but do what the child wants. The difference that that makes to a severely abused child who has come from a difficult background into a home where there is an adult who simply wants to be with that child reinforces the child's identity and confidence and helps to address bad behaviour in, I am told, a fantastic way. Along with other forms of discipline—time out, consequences, and the other more negative side of controlling a child—it can work really well. As I have said, it is not magic, but it helps to develop relationships.
	That Government initiative was launched in Islington, but the good news for hon. Members is that it will be coming their way soon. It is being sent around the rest of the country, and I hope that foster parents will benefit from the practical and real help that it provides.

Beverley Hughes: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for their knowledgeable descriptions of a number of the efforts we have made to support foster carers in ways that make a real difference to them as, in my view, a charter and registration process would not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the Fostering Changes programme is spoken of very enthusiastically and warmly by foster carers who have benefited from it.
	In the relatively short time left to me I want to focus on new clause 7, which deals with something that concerns Members throughout the House—the issue of privately fostered children. We all know that some such children—but by no means all: that is an important point—are a potentially vulnerable group. I share the anxiety of Members throughout the House to ensure that the arrangements for safeguarding them are as robust and effective as possible, and to do so as speedily as possible.
	New clause 7 proposes that within a year of the Bill's being passed, the Secretary of State would have to make regulations in relation to England to establish a registration scheme for private foster carers, and Welsh Ministers would have to do likewise for Wales. I recognise that there have been calls for a registration scheme for some time, and that in 2004 we said that we thought we could decide the matter within four years, but let me say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that, keen as I am to move forward, it is clear to me that that time scale was too optimistic. Having examined the issue in some detail, I should add that it is equally clear to me that it would be unwise and foolhardy, if not impossible, to introduce a registration scheme within a year. I think that in the question he asked me on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North reached the right conclusion: that it simply would not be possible.
	I accept that local authorities could have been swifter and more diligent in developing the notification scheme and raising levels of awareness, as required by the duty in the 2004 Act. I also accept, however, that we are asking them to do something extraordinarily difficult, which means building relationships with, in some cases, the most separated minority communities. That applies particularly to the children about whom we are most concerned.
	I would not accept that we are dithering or dragging our feet. I gently remind the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) of the longer time scale. The Conservative party put in the Children Act 1989 a duty on local authorities to satisfy themselves of the welfare of privately fostered children, and then for eight years did nothing to satisfy themselves that local authorities were undertaking that duty.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows that, but I will explain why. Exactly the same challenges that are facing us now in making a notification scheme work will apply in relation to a registration scheme. Those children who we are most worried about who are not currently being notified to the local authority and who are in a privately fostered arrangement will not necessarily be registered with the local authority. The local authority would be faced with the same challenges of raising levels of awareness, building relationships with minority communities and making sure that everyone registers who should. It is not a panacea for that precise reason.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) challenged us to say what we are going to do in the meantime. There are three things that we need to do. First, we need sufficient evidence before we make a decision and proceed. That is simply not available in the time scale, not because we have been tardy, but because it was never going to be available in the time scale. We have two full years of data on the notification scheme for 2006-07 and 2007-08. We have yet to get the third year that we always said we needed. Inspection data are also important. We set in place a three-year inspection programme started by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and continued by the Office for Standards in Education. The third report will not be completed until November 2009. The Welsh care and social services inspectorate is also undertaking a national review that will not be published until 2009.
	Secondly, while we get that evidence, we need to ensure that we can push to the wire to see whether we can make the existing notification scheme as effective as possible. In that regard, we have already done a number of things. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) was the Under-Secretary of State, he wrote to all directors of children's services asking them to do all they can to raise awareness of the scheme and to maximise notifications. Similar efforts have been made in Wales.  [Interruption.] He wrote last month to all directors. Government offices will be working closely with local authorities in those areas where notifications are low, identifying them and targeting them. We are developing a national communications strategy to raise awareness of the current requirements within the children's work force and we have provided £50,000 to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering to sponsor a national private fostering awareness week in January. The Welsh Assembly Government are also providing support to BAAF in Wales to do a similar thing. Those measures together will help us to test the current system and give it its best chance of success.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, we are giving very careful consideration to the best long-term solution during this period. This is not a clear-cut issue. We need to understand much better what added value, if any, a registration scheme would bring and how it would work, recognising not only the potential impact on local authorities, but—the hon. Gentleman touched on this but did not elaborate—the potential disadvantages for many ordinary families making normal and straightforward arrangements that we would not want to bring into the purview of a registration scheme, and the penalties that would flow from not registering such an arrangement.
	It is not clear that registration would be any more successful in encouraging registration from those who do not currently notify and it might even deter some people from registering their private arrangements. We want to work with an independent expert group that will advise me over the next couple of years on these important matters. The first meeting of the group was held on 29 September and I am looking forward to announcing shortly, I hope, the appointment of a very senior, independent chair of the group, who I know will have the confidence of all Members. The group's role will be to advise the Department on raising awareness of the strengthened notification scheme, on assessing the evidence of impact, on options for further strengthening the notification scheme and on developing models for a registration scheme in advance, if that is the decision made.
	The group consists of representatives of the Association of Directors of Children'sServices, Ofsted, the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, the NSPCC and the Home Office. We will invite others from Wales to join us. The group will be meeting regularly and will present its final report to Ministers in March 2010 when we will make a decision. I will publish the conclusions of the group and will make a statement to the House. I have not abandoned the idea of a registration scheme, but I make no apologies for wanting to get this right. It is therefore important to retain the option of introducing a registration scheme for a further three years, so if the case is compelling, it can be introduced at the right time.
	Significantly, the British Association for Adoption and Fostering agrees that we should seek first to improve the current arrangements and evaluate them more fully before deciding whether to introduce a registration regime. BAAF shares our reservations about the introduction of a registration scheme at this point. That has weighed heavily with me in deciding whether to include the provision in the Bill for extending the period to three years. I will not accept the amendment, which would not give us a well worked out registration scheme. That would be very dangerous.
	New clause 23 would require local authorities to publish a charter setting out the authorities' responsibilities with regard to foster carers within their area. There are some technical reasons why this would be both difficult and confusing. One is that foster carers enter into a foster care agreement with their provider, but in addition they enter into a foster placement agreement with the local authority placing the child. For instance, where a provider is not a local authority, the proposal would be extremely confusing. The kind of measures that we have introduced are much more important in assisting foster carers. Similarly for a registration process, foster carers are selected, recruited and trained locally and, of course, a national registration scheme would impose on them all of the conditions that a registration scheme now imposes on social workers. I am afraid that I cannot accept those amendments, either.

Question accordingly negatived.
	After Clause 6
	 Amendment made: No. 4, in page 5, line 38, leave out clause 7.— [Sarah McCarthy-Fry.]

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 8, line 34, at end insert—
	'( ) Until the coming into force of subsection (1), Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act has effect with the modifications specified in Schedule [Transitory modifications of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act].'.— [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry. ]

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 14, line 25, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.
	No. 9, in page 14, line 38, at end insert—
	'(4A) After that subsection add—
	"(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), if the child is not in the area of the local authority, they must treat him as if he were in that area."'.— [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry .]

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 25, line 23, leave out 'the death of a' and insert 'a deceased'.— [ Sarah McCarthy-Fry .]

Helen Southworth: I would like to say once again how effective the Bill is, how effective the process has been and how positive future outcomes should be for young people in care and those leaving care. I would not be speaking in this debate if I were not prepared to say that I want to make sure we get those outcomes. We have been around for a little while now, and we know that sometimes, despite our best intentions, delivery for young people is not what we would always want it to be. I therefore ask Ministers again, in the next few months when regulations are being prepared to support the measure, to give particular consideration to the young people whom we have identified as especially vulnerable—those who leave care too early. The Bill will reduce the number of those young people, but we must monitor the situation to ensure that that happens, and that effective support is provided in the transitional stages for those who leave care before the age of 18.
	I hope that Ministers will do significant work on the outcomes for young people in custody. As hon. Members know, there is a young offenders institution in my constituency. For 11 years I have worked closely with the officers and support staff there, and have been incredibly impressed by some of the measures that they have put in place to help vulnerable young people change their lives. They have been ably assisted by social work support at the institution. It is important that the Bill and the provision for visitors do not undermine, but support and add to the concept of having an embedded social worker in a young offenders institution. I hope that the regulations will show that that will take place.
	In our earlier debates it was said that, when a young person is preparing to leave a young offenders institution, it is important for an effective and experienced social worker, if not an independent reviewing officer—that remains my preference—to be involved. Someone who has the skills, experience and abilities commensurate with being an independent reviewing officer should determine whether the young person needs to return to looked-after status, and what accommodation is suitable, and ensure that the pathways are effective and established to support those young people once they have completed a custodial sentence.
	Again, I press for support up to the age of 21 for young people who leave care. Supported accommodation is essential for young people. It is essential for everybody to have access to help, support and information when they first try to live independently, pay bills and manage a tenancy. We need to ensure in the regulations that young people who leave care are properly supported, and make it clear that there are statutory requirements, which will be monitored to ensure that the changes are put in place.
	Those things sound prescriptive—they are—but I know that Ministers and other hon. Members want them to happen. We are at the stage of moving on to expect local authorities to deliver for us. We need to be clear about our expectations of the monitoring process and of the way in which inspections are carried out, to ensure that the objectives are delivered for young people.

Edward Timpson: Briefly, I join other hon. Members in welcoming the main body and thrust of the Bill, although some opportunities have been missed, which have been highlighted and which were gone through with a fine-tooth comb in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
	I bring two such issues to the attention of the House and urge the Government to continue to look at them closely in the near future: the registration scheme, and the treatment and support of children in custody who have lost their looked-after status having come from voluntary accommodation. That is a serious issue that needs urgent attention, and I put the Government on notice that we want some action on it sooner rather than later. However, the message from the Committee was one of moving forward for the children who are the most vulnerable in our society. There is no doubt that we have managed to achieve steps in the right direction.
	I am also delighted to hear that the Government acknowledge that these measures are the first step, and that there is still a lot of work to do to try to ensure that we provide the support and the service for the most vulnerable children in our society.
	On that note, there are two particular aspects of children in care into which the Government need to channel their energies: first, those who are on the cusp of care and are in danger of falling into the care system—we need to try to support them and their families to prevent that from happening, because to this day we still have more than 60,000 children in the care system—and, secondly, children who want to move out of the care system and are on the cusp of a new life. We need to support their long-term future. If we can achieve that, we will have gone a long way to fulfilling our responsibilities—as Members of Parliament, as parents and as responsible members of society.
	I welcome the Bill and I am glad that it is a step in the right direction. I look forward to the progress being put into action.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Andrew Robathan: It is true. The council states that there exists a 12th-century charter, given by a 12th-century king—it could have been Henry II or possibly even the wicked King John—that allows Leicester city, which presumably refers to a predecessor of Leicester city council rather than the current organisation, to impose restrictions on markets to be held close to the city centre. I should stress that nobody can find the charter, although allegedly a copy exists. Leicester city council believes that it is allowed to ban any market within 62/3 miles of the city market. I do not know how that slightly odd measurement came about, because after all measurements were made in miles and furlongs.
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Steve McCabe.]

Andrew Robathan: As I was saying, in medieval times, measurements were made in miles and furlongs rather than 2/3 miles, which does not quite fit in. Furthermore, the copy of the charter makes no mention of a distance from the city centre. It is suggested that 62/3 miles is the distance that a herd of cattle could be driven in a day or a decent walk for a medieval villein, serf or peasant—I would have thought that they could have gone a bit further, but never mind.
	The fact remains that the city council believes that it has the legal authority to impose restrictions and ban markets within 62/3 miles of the city centre where the city market is located. Blaby, in my constituency, is well outside the city boundaries. I have no problem with the city market, and when I go into Leicester—rarely—I often go there to shop. I certainly wish the market and its traders no ill.
	I understand, however, that increasing competition from supermarkets and new commercial shopping centres is probably affecting market trade. There are large supermarkets—Morrisons, I believe, on the old cattle market and a new development called Highcross—which must inevitably be in direct competition with the market, whereas farmers markets, held typically once a month, are not an enormous threat to custom at the city market. Apart from anything else, to drive into the city from my constituency village of Blaby takes some time. Traffic and congestion are often bad and one would have to pay to park on getting there. All those are deterrents to people who might wish to buy potatoes and sausages in the city market. Therefore, the idea that the farmers market in Blaby and the city market are in competition is palpable nonsense.
	Nevertheless, apparently the market traders are concerned that they should not lose their supposed position of market dominance over others. For that reason, they have persuaded the city council to enforce the charter. To be fair to the city council, it has recently allowed an extension of the number of farmers markets to one a month. The Minister, who thought I was being partisan earlier, might wish to know that the previous Liberal Democrat administration, supported by the Conservatives, would not allow one a month. Therefore, it is not a partisan issue.
	The magnanimity shown recently by the city council is only on the condition that the farmers market pays £300 for each day that it holds a market. The House will understand that that is a large amount to be paid for a small event, and it threatens the viability of the farmers market as a whole. At the same time, the Blaby social centre, which is akin to a village hall, holds a table-top sale to raise money for the social centre, which is a charity. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber—I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby)—have similar charitable events in their constituencies. That table-top sale typically earns between £60 and £80 on each occasion. Unbelievably, Leicester city council charges £20 for the privilege of holding that table-top sale.
	It is self-evident that in mediaeval times the layout of Leicester city might have been somewhat different, the buildings were different, there were no forms of transport other than by horse or horse and cart—possibly donkey—there were restrictive practices, and payments were made and taxes levied by means such as the charter. Life was altogether a little different without recourse to Topshop, Sainsbury's or Marks and Sparks. If anybody could produce the charter, it would be an interesting and historic document that should be placed in a museum, perhaps on the site of the city market.
	Nobody is ever going to accuse me of being a moderniser—I would be most grateful if my party leader did not hear that—but sometimes traditions become outdated and inappropriate. The charter is being used to restrict consumer choice and trade and has no justification whatever in the 21st century, even if there was apparently a test case in 1979 that upheld the right of Leicester city to dictate to others where they should have markets.
	In a radio interview yesterday, a Leicester city councillor told me that the council had a legal duty to uphold the charter. That sounds a pretty spurious explanation to me, and, indeed, the fact that the council is willing to waive the restriction in return for funds suggests that the letter of the law—which I do not think exists anyway—is not being observed.
	I wrote to the chief executive of Leicester city council last spring. She replied on 7 May that
	"the policy was amended recently to accommodate Blaby farmers market and I am happy to report this event has been very successful".
	She also wrote that the
	"table top sale.....is categorised as an occasional sale market",
	and that
	"all events are licensed within our market boundaries and it is important for legal purposes we maintain this position".
	I have struggled to find any reasonable justification for the rival markets policy. I very much doubt whether it is genuinely legal; it seems to me to be more a question of custom. I cannot believe that any reasonable person considers that Leicester city's jurisdiction should restrict consumers' choice and trading outside Leicester city. In short, the whole thing is nonsense: it is ludicrous.
	Furthermore, the council is acting in entirely the opposite direction to a public policy that many Members in all parts of the House would wish to be pursued—the desirability of buying local produce from local producers locally, for instance at farmers markets. Indeed, I believe that on the one hand the Government give money to support farmers markets, while on the other—with its holistic policy—Leicester city council takes the money away as a tax. Incidentally, there is taxation without representation here.
	I ask the Government to examine the position and make a very simple ruling—I suspect it would not require any primary legislation—that the charter, should it exist, be annulled. We elect Governments to govern, and I do not think that this would be a difficult case to fight, but I hope that, if there should be a ridiculous legal challenge from the city council or market traders, judges—who sometimes disappoint me—will have enough sense to throw out the challenge.
	If Leicester city council objected to such a course, I would ask it what possible justification there was for the operation of a rival markets policy outside the jurisdiction of its civil authority. I would suggest to my aggrieved constituents that the current situation might be worth testing in law. I cannot believe that the council or Leicester city market traders would be so foolish as to bring an injunction against a farmers market, or even better, a charity table-top sale; but I believe that, if they were so stupid, the case would be easily dismissed by any judge who took a sensible and pragmatic view of life.
	Again, I ask the Government to examine the position. It does not require a great deal of time, effort or bureaucracy, and it certainly requires no money. It requires a simple ruling, and possibly a simple order or statutory instrument—I am not sure that it requires even that—to ensure that my constituents and local farmers in Leicestershire can hold farmers markets or charity table-top sales wherever they want in my constituency, without the interference of a local authority that has no jurisdiction over the area except via a spurious and outdated charter.
	I shall end on that note. I wish to hear what the Minister has to say. I am also delighted to see that the former leader of Leicester city council, the hon. Member for Leicester, South is present. If he wishes to speak, I shall have no objection if the Minister too does not object.

Iain Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. I have been fascinated to learn of the market charter. Ministers are often accused—falsely—of taking the short-term view, so it has been fascinating to hear of a statute that was signed possibly in the middle ages which can still affect modern decision making today.
	I agree completely with what the hon. Gentleman said. Markets are an important hub of community life throughout the country. We estimate that there are more than 1,400 markets in the UK. They each play an important commercial and social role in their communities, a role that is not often acknowledged.
	In the interests of researching the debate, I looked at my own constituency of Hartlepool, where we have had a market for several centuries. In 1201, King John gave Hartlepool its first charter, so I was interested to hear about King John possibly giving this particular charter. Obviously, he had a fondness for market charters. The merchants of Hartlepool were given the same privileges as the merchants of Newcastle. As a result of the charter, Hartlepool was able to organise a weekly market, which ushered in a period of sustained prosperity for the area and, as in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, attracted buyers and sellers from a wide area and secured valuable trade routes in my own patch in the north of England.
	If we fast forward to the modern age, I still believe that markets, perhaps now more than ever—or more than for many years—can play an important role in the social, economic and commercial life of an area. At a time when people are concerned about the quality of food, its price and the impact on the environment of growing the produce and, crucially, transporting it to be sold and consumed, markets are becoming increasingly important. They can reconnect consumers with local produce, minimise the carbon footprint, provide value for money and help to revitalise town centres, which my Department and I take seriously.
	People who are attracted into Blaby through the farmers market will often be tempted to look around the shops of its town centre, thereby helping to secure the viability of local traders. While researching the debate, I was struck by the comments of Councillor Guy Jackson of Blaby district, portfolio holder for the natural and built environment. In November 2007 he said:
	"The farmers market has certainly been successful, attracting hundreds of shoppers to Blaby and making it a busy and bustling town centre. It shows that local people really want fresh produce from local producers. We are delighted we have reached agreement with Leicester city council so we can now have 12 farmers markets in Blaby during 2008."
	Some 550 farmers markets take place on a regular basis in the UK. The National Farmers Retail and Markets Association estimates that 10,000 farmers rely on farmers markets and use them to take their produce to the public. They estimate that farmers markets are worth about £220 million annually, money which feeds back directly into the local community.
	Farmers markets provide a good opportunity to cut out the middleman and improve financial returns through direct selling, price control and a regular cash flow. They can provide direct customer feedback on produce and prices, reduce the costs of transport and packaging, and provide a secure and regular market outlet, which is especially valuable for new producers, producers in organic conversion and small-scale producers who are unable to produce the quantity that might be required by supermarkets. Encouraging these principles is a key goal outlined in the Government's "Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future."
	All of this reinforces the point that fundamentally markets are a local facility, servicing local people and providing much-needed outlets for small local producers and entrepreneurs. Just as markets are about providing a local hub for local businesses and people, the issue before us this evening is very much a local issue. It is complex and, as we have heard, has its roots in history and in royal and legal tradition. Nevertheless, it is a local issue.
	It is very much the kind of complex local issue that the Government want to encourage local authorities and their communities to resolve. We are often accused by our opponents of being too centralising and of wanting to micro-manage everything. In fact the reverse is true. We believe that decisions are best made as locally as possible and we wish to empower local communities to enable them to make those decisions. We believe it is right that problems such as this are resolved as locally as possible without the intervention of, or interference from, central Government. That is the ethos behind the devolutionary principles we have recently set out in our White Paper "Communities in control: real people, real power." The White Paper is about devolving power to citizens and communities, and it makes significant steps towards giving local people a greater say in their lives and greater control over the forces and decisions that shape their neighbourhoods.
	We want to shift power, influence and responsibility away from existing centres of power into the hands of communities and individual citizens. That is because we believe that they can take decisions and solve complex problems for themselves. It is also because local circumstances will be different. Blaby's concerns will be very different from those of Blaydon, or Burbank in my constituency. The state's role should be to set national priorities and minimum standards, while providing support and a fair distribution of resources. The state should act as a facilitator and an enabler.